Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Individual Learning Accounts

Mr. Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the role of individual learning accounts in the workplace and the home. [29877]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday our consultation document "The Learning Age". That set out our proposals for developing individual learning accounts to help people to take more control of their learning and manage their own careers.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain how people who are out of work might benefit from the learning initiatives and credits, and what impact they might have on the national grid for learning and the university for industry?

Dr. Howells: Individual learning accounts will focus in particular on those who are currently out of work and would like to acquire new skills in order to return to work. The accounts will run alongside a range of other Government initiatives, such as the new deal, which is aimed specifically at 18 to 24-year-olds and is designed to help them to return to training and education, and to obtain work.
Through the Green Paper, we are consulting on how that will impact on the national grid for learning. We believe that the grid will extend to colleges and universities, and to public places. The individual learning initiative will be linked in many ways to many parts of the national grid for learning, and to the whole education and training spectrum.

Mr. Willis: We were deeply disappointed by the Green Paper that was published yesterday, but one feature that pleased us was the introduction of individual learning accounts. That has long been a Liberal Democrat policy, and we are glad that the Government have adopted it.
To date, have any financial institutions expressed interest in taking up the 1 million £150 bank accounts that are to be introduced as part of the policy? Has the

Chancellor of the Exchequer already ruled out the two other important elements of individual learning accounts—tax relief on income put into the accounts by employers or individuals, and the matching of income by the Treasury?

Dr. Howells: I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats have seen fit to support individual learning accounts. We think that this is an excellent initiative, and we are very encouraged by the response of industry. We have discussed the initiative widely with industry, and we will continue to do so. We hope very much that employers will see the sense of topping up individual learning accounts: we think that they are an excellent way in which to promote training, and we think that training equals better profits. The best firms understand that, and are already putting a great deal of money into training—£10.5 billion last year. We want to do everything to encourage them.

Mr. Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend commend the managing director of Thorn Lighting in Spennymoor? Speaking about the work force, he said, "We discovered that with every pair of hands we were given a free brain." Is it not true that most employers only scratch the surface of all the skill and talent that they have in their work force? Is that not why lifelong learning and individual learning accounts are crucial?

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend is right. Many firms contain enormous potential that has hardly been recognised, and certainly has not been developed. We must encourage employers to take such action—especially the great mass of small and medium-sized enterprises that are often firefighting just to stay alive. All too often, such employers worry only about their margins and their bottom lines. We need to reconfigure the whole delivery of training and education, so that it is tailored to meet the requirements of employees and employers, and to improve their competitiveness and that of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)

Miss McIntosh: What representations he has received from long—term unemployed people concerning their eligibility under the new deal. [29879]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): I have received a number of such representations. The new deal for adults who have been unemployed two years or more will start this June, and we are currently considering piloting the extension of the new deal approach to cover those who have been unemployed for a shorter period.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister find that the Secretary of State supports his view that the success of the Government's new deal policy will be proved by making the downward trend move even more rapidly, and that the long-term unemployed under-25-year-olds—those who have been unemployed for more than two years—are the hardest target to help now? Their chances of leaving the count are only 57 per cent. What measures do the Government intend to announce for the summer, and what take-up has there been from the private sector for the new deal to help the long-term unemployed under 25?

Mr. Smith: The new deal for the longer-term unemployed has not started yet, but, when it does, we


shall all see the take-up from employers. The initial signs are encouraging in terms of the overall support and participation in the new deal by both small and large businesses. On the current trends in unemployment, of course the new deal first offers help to the younger unemployed, but we shall be introducing help for the longer-term unemployed. It is interesting to note that while unemployment has fallen sharply for the young unemployed, it has also fallen equally sharply for the older and longer-term unemployed.

Mr. Reed: Although I welcome the emphasis we have placed on young people and getting the young generation back to work, will my hon. Friend accept that in many constituencies such as mine in Loughborough, where many people lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector, those in their 40s have much to offer this country, particularly engineers who have been made redundant over the past few years? The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) will know about this, as Loughborough used to be his constituency. We know full well that those people have much to offer. Can we ensure that we move as quickly as possible to bring into the scheme those in their 40s who have another 20 years to offer?

Mr. Smith: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend about the contribution that older unemployed people and older workers have to make. That is why we are extending the new deal to the older age group in June, and it is why we maintain a wide range of programmes aimed at helping older workers back into jobs. It is also why I am consulting on how we can most effectively tackle discrimination in the workplace, which so badly afflicts the prospects of so many of those trying to get back into work.

Mr. Willetts: Does the Minister accept that there are more people who have been unemployed for more than two years than there are young people who have been unemployed for more than six months? Can he defend the fact that 90 per cent. of the budget will go on young people and only 10 per cent. on the long-term unemployed? Does not he remember that, in the Chamber the other week, he said that the reason why the Government could not support legislation to ban age discrimination in recruitment advertisements was that their new deal would be caught by it?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that, thanks to the legacy we inherited from his Government, youth unemployment is still twice the level of unemployment among the rest of the work force. The damage done to those young individuals, starting on what should be a life in work, but being consigned by the policies of the previous Government to a life on benefit, is incalculable, not only to them but to the communities in which they live and to the level of crime in this country. We make no apology for keeping our promise to get 250,000 young people off benefit and into jobs. We will help older people as well through the measures I have announced today.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend remember that there is a lost generation in this country—lost due to the incompetence and unfeeling nature of the former Government? Many people became unemployed in the early 1980s during that bitter recession, and many of those

in our towns and cities have not worked to this day. The sooner the new deal gives them a chance to get back into work the better.

Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. Providing such a chance is why, from June, those workers will be eligible for a £75 a week subsidy for six months as they move into employment, and why they will be eligible to take up the training and study opportunities that they were denied by the Conservative party.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal

Mr. Paterson: What representations he has received on the new deal. [29880]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We are receiving enthusiastic support from across the country. In the 24 hours following the launch of the new deal television advertising campaign, we have received more than 780 calls, mainly from employers. Most importantly, the reaction from unemployed young people themselves in the pathfinder areas has been very positive. Last week, 154 young people who were not yet eligible for the new deal presented themselves early.

Mr. Paterson: In the past 15 years, small businesses employing fewer than 20 people have created 2 million jobs, enjoying the benefits of our deregulated, free-market economy. The Federation of Small Businesses has stated that, if business rates were sharply reduced, small businesses could take on up to 25 per cent. more employees. Has the Minister received representations from such organisations on reducing Government-imposed business costs with the money that Ministers have confiscated from the utilities?

Mr. Howarth: It is really very sad that the Conservative party appears to be indifferent to unemployment among young people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights reminded the House a moment ago, the Conservative party left youth unemployment at twice the national average and at twice the level that it was in the early 1980s. Now, the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that we should not bother about unemployment among young people. Of course we desire to create conditions in which businesses, including small businesses, can prosper. However, a very large majority of the 1,362 employer agreements to take part in the new deal that have already been signed are with small and medium-sized enterprises.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fast-growing enthusiasm among employers for signing up to the new deal? Perhaps that enthusiasm is attributable to the fact that real-life employers have been used in the national advertisements, and that their enthusiasm is evident to everyone watching them. Does he agree also that young people's enthusiasm is growing? For the first time, they are getting a real chance to combine what they want, what they can offer and what employers want. That opportunity is making a tremendous difference to the new programme.

Madam Speaker: Before the Minister replies, I note that the hon. Member for North Shropshire


(Mr. Paterson), who tabled the question, has left the Chamber. I remind hon. Members that they must wait until the question is finished.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Madam Speaker, the indifference of the Tory party could not have been more vividly shown. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) is absolutely right: the new deal is a massive undertaking—a real national effort—in which it seems that the only people who do not want to be involved are those in the Tory party. However, Conservative Members' support will be welcome. There is, in my experience, a welcome for the sinner who repents, and I encourage them to overcome their embarrassment—which we all understand—and join employers and voluntary organisations in a shared commitment to provide effective help to those who have been the casualties of the policies of the later years of the Conservative Government, and those who are most vulnerable to the processes of economic change.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is it not a fact that the Government can find only approximately a half of the quarter of a million young people whom they want to help in the new deal? Do the Government still assert that the new deal will be cost neutral, despite the fact that 17 similar schemes undertaken in 10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have proved to cost far, far more and to be extremely expensive? Is not unemployment still falling in this country because of the excellent economy that the previous Government left? Is the new deal, therefore, not irrelevant?

Mr. Howarth: The penny seems slow to drop. The Conservative Government left unemployment among young people at twice the level that it was among other groups in the population. We think that a proper—a vital—responsibility of Government is to address that. Each month, about 15,000 to 20,000 young people pass six months' plus unemployment, and we, for our part, will not give up on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — Basic Literacy

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans he has to enforce standards of basic literacy in schools. [29882]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Literacy is at the heart of our drive to raise standards. By the end of this Parliament, we expect 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the standard expected for their age in English. We have made the curriculum more flexible and reduced bureaucracy so that primary schools can focus on the basics, and we have allocated £59 million to support literacy in 1998–99.

Mr. Howarth: The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), was speaking a moment ago about sinners who repent. We greatly welcome the fact that, at long last, the sinners in the Labour party are repenting of their failure to acknowledge the importance of the three Rs in providing our children with the basic ability to compete in the world. We appreciate what the Minister has done, but why has it taken so long? After all,

the Labour party has been in charge of delivering education at local level across much of the country. What is the Minister doing to ensure that our teacher training colleges understand the importance of the three Rs, especially literacy, in their curriculum?

Mr. Byers: We have changed the initial teacher training curriculum so that teachers are taught how to help children read. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the legacy that we inherited whereby one in four 11-year-olds failed to reach the expected level in English. He should give some thought to what is happening in his local education authority area. Hampshire, I am pleased to say, has agreed that, by the end of this Parliament, 88 per cent. of 11-year-olds will have reached the required level.
The hon. Gentleman might also thank the Government on behalf of the schools in Aldershot which, as a result of an announcement made three weeks ago, will have 8,000 new school books this financial year. That is an example of the Government not just talking about raising standards, but providing the resources to ensure that it happens.

Mr. Clapham: Although I understand that there is a need to improve literacy standards, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a place for the creative arts? Will he consider what might be done in the future to ensure that the creative arts are included on a wider basis in education?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established a creative arts curriculum group which will report on how we can develop the non-basics in the primary curriculum. However, we have to get the basics of reading and writing in place before young people can benefit from the creative arts.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agenda 2000

Mr. Sanders: What representations he has had from local organisations with respect to Agenda 2000 and the reform of the European structural funds. [29883]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have received three representations from further education and from the Confederation of British Industry. In addition, my right. hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights has held meetings with the Alliance for Regional Aid and the Local Government Association.

Mr. Sanders: The Secretary of State will be aware that the structural funds are divided up by regions across the whole of the European Union. The Devon and Cornwall region receives around £191 million from the present programme up to the year 2000. The problem is that, in future, the region that will determine how the programme affects our area will be the whole of the south-west region. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the special problems of Devon and Cornwall, which make the area distinct from the rest of the south-west, will be recognised in the new programmes after 2000?

Mr. Blunkett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and


I will make every possible representation. That includes providing the foundations from our presidency in getting right Agenda 2000, and ensuring that the European social fund and the remaining structural funds are used effectively so that we protect our areas from the changes that are inevitable in that new period of funding.

Mr. O'Hara: Given that the European Union is now confident that provision for the expanded Community can be catered for from growth within the European economy, and given that the United Kingdom is currently classed as the fourth poorest of the European countries, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he and his colleagues will be fighting to ensure that there is no reduction whatsoever in the UK share of structural funds after 2000?

Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend knows, it is important to this country that the assessment is based on gross domestic product and the real economy. As things improve, we hope that there will be less need for investment in regions that currently suffer deprivation, such as his area and my area. We need specifically to protect objective 2 programmes—we shall take every possible step to ensure that we do so.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not clear that Her Majesty's Government would be unwise to look to the European Union in the longer term to sustain jobs in regions of high unemployment in the United Kingdom, particularly in view of projected enlargement? If the European Union is unable to support British jobs, is not it crucial that the Government reduce the net British contribution in the next quinquennial financial perspective from 2000? Is not it of paramount importance that the budgetary bind has no adverse effect on enlargement?

Mr. Blunkett: The negotiations to ensure that we receive from the European Union what we put into it, and the way in which we balance broad economic objectives across the 15 nations—more when the Union has expanded—with the need to invest regionally, are part of the programme that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet are addressing. If we had had a better environment in which to approach these issues, we would obviously have been able to make more rapid progress.

Mr. Pearson: European structural fund money has played a major part in the economic regeneration of the physical fabric of Birmingham and the west midlands, and has improved the work force's employability. In welcoming my right hon. Friend's comments on the importance of objective 2 and the reform of the structural funds, may I encourage him to make representations in the strongest possible terms so that we receive our fair share of European regional money in the west midlands and in the rest of the United Kingdom? Proposals that mean that the United Kingdom will suffer a disproportionate cut are not acceptable.

Madam Speaker: Is there a question there?

Mr. Blunkett: I will do my best to answer the question as I perceived it. The answer is yes. I will ensure that, at the joint education and social affairs informal meeting in London on 12 and 13 March, we start to address these

issues, so that we highlight the importance to the United Kingdom of the structural funds and draw the press's attention to the significance of getting Agenda 2000 right. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Madam Speaker: Or his comment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployment (Regional Disparities)

Mr. Wigley: What steps he plans to take to reduce regional disparities in unemployment levels. [29884]

Mr. Andrew Smith: Notwithstanding welcome falls in the overall level of unemployment and, indeed, some narrowing of regional disparities, we recognise the deep-seated problems in Wales, notably in the valleys and rural areas. That is why we are proposing an expanded role for the Welsh Development Agency—which will work with the national assembly—and the initiatives in the new deal, such as employment zones and regional selective assistance.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that my constituency has the highest unemployment rate—9.4 per cent.—in Wales, but does not have full development area status? Is not it time to consider the panoply of tools that are available to the Government—to the Department for Education and Employment and to the Department of Trade and Industry—to ensure that all avenues are explored in order to bring down these unacceptably high levels of unemployment?

Mr. Smith: Indeed, which is one of the reasons why we set up prototype employment zones—the one in Wales includes the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—to explore new ways in which to pool existing streams of funding and to harness local community effort from the bottom up, in partnership with the Government's wider approach. We are doing that precisely to generate jobs, to enhance employability and to give hope to those of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents who are in long-term unemployment.

Ms Moran: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend welcome the prototype employment zones. Will he join me in welcoming an initiative that will tackle the severe problems of the long-term unemployed in areas of persistence and long-standing unemployment? Will he consider extending the initiative to areas such as my constituency in central Luton? Does he agree that focusing on local problems and local need is infinitely more effective than the standardised schemes that were the legacy of the previous Government?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. Partnership and the bottom-up approach are integral parts of the new deal, which will benefit the older and longer-term unemployed as much as the young unemployed. Partnership with business, local councils, the voluntary sector and environmental groups will bring real hope to those who suffer the legacy of the failed policies of the previous Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I recognise the problems in the Caernarfon constituency, which are always ably articulated by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will the Minister give me an


assurance that the Government have no proposals, under the new deal or anything else, that will damage the prospects of areas with low levels of unemployment such as my constituency of Macclesfield, which has about 2.2 per cent. unemployment?

Mr. Smith: Indeed not. Under the new deal, help goes to the individual, so unemployed people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will receive help in the same way as unemployed people elsewhere. The particular focus of the new deal on enhancing employability and equipping people with skills means that it will be good for the wider community and the young long-term unemployed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and good for business.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal (Retail Sector)

Mr. Love: What representations he has received from the retail sector about the new deal. [29886]

Mr. Andrew Smith: I have had discussions with representatives from retail organisations about the new deal for young people, and have been very pleased with the enthusiasm and commitment that they have shown. Many retail organisations have already signed national employer agreements, including Dixons, W H Smith, Tesco and Sainsbury.

Mr. Love: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that many young people eligible for the new deal will want to work in the retail sector? The agreement whereby in-house training provided by retail companies can be translated into National Vocational Qualifications has been warmly welcomed within the industry. Will he ensure that all future arrangements include the same combination of high-quality education and appropriate qualifications to ensure the long-term job prospects of the young people involved?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. It is a core requirement of every aspect of the new deal that it should supply high-quality training to a recognised standard. That is why the agreement that we have reached with the retail industry is not only of value in ensuring that well-regarded in-house training arrangements are translatable into progress and NVQs, but is a model for framework agreements in other sectors which we shall also be pursuing.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployment

Mr. Gapes: If he will make a statement on his Department's measures to reduce unemployment. [29887]

Mr. Andrew Smith: We shall continue with policies for sustainable economic growth and employability that create employment opportunity for all, including raising educational standards and extending lifelong learning, as well as the new deal and other Employment Service measures.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister continue to make sure that the Government's policy to get people off benefit and into work will lead to long-term employability, and real skills and education so

that they will have long-term prospects in the job market, in contrast to the failed policies of the previous Government—the Mickey Mouse jobs and the so-called schemes which left so many young people bitterly disillusioned about their prospects of getting work in future?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to say that the new deal will offer real jobs and qualifications leading to a life in work instead of a life on benefit. That is why every employer agreement—subject to the young person progressing satisfactorily and being sufficiently well motivated—commits the employer to providing a continuing job beyond the period of subsidy. That is why we insist that young people have at least the equivalent of one day a week training towards a recognised qualification. As those features of the new deal become better known among young people as well as employers, hundreds of youngsters are trying to get on to the programme early.

Mrs. Browning: The Minister will be aware that, among the people on benefit whom the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned, are people with learning disabilities, who might be quite capable of carrying out the tasks required in the workplace but whose essential difficulty might be communication and behavioural problems. What, in practical terms, do the Government intend to provide as support either to them or to the workplace to enable more people with learning disabilities to get off benefit and into work?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady raises an important concern. That is why the programme provides for early entry into the new deal for disabled people, including those with learning difficulties. They will not have to be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance for six months before being able to receive the benefits of the new deal. Those benefits will include, as a follow-up to the initial gateway interview, assessment of their particular needs and referral to specialist course and agencies, including voluntary groups with a track record of success in working in the community, to ensure that needs are addressed. Another core feature of the new deal is such tailored help, which responds to individuals' needs. We want to ensure that those with learning difficulties or other disabilities get a fair deal through the new deal.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the tens of thousands of redundancies in the steel industry over many years? Many of them took place in my constituency. We have also lost development area status and objective 2 status. Many estates, streets and communities are still trying to pick up the pieces following the redundancies. Will the new deal help the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Smith: Yes, it will. My hon. Friend's constituents will be able to benefit from the employer subsidies for recruitment and the training and study opportunities that the new deal will make available from June for long-term unemployed people—as well as being able to benefit from the wider application of the principles of employment zones, which I described earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education Funding

Mr. Spring: What steps he is taking to ensure that funding from central Government for education is actually spent on education by county councils. [29888]

Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the leaders of local authorities to emphasise that the increase in resources of more than £1 billion should be passed on to schools. Of that, more than £10.7 million should be going to schools in Suffolk.

Mr. Spring: In practice, educational provision in the county of Suffolk, for example, is under threat. In practice, for the first time in the county's history, school budgets are being cut. Would the hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to apologise to all parents, teachers and governors who, having heard his party's education, education, education slogan, now know that they have been bitterly let down and misled?

Mr. Byers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow prejudice to get in the way of fact. He needs to be aware that the Government have provided £10.7 million for schools in Suffolk—way above the rate of inflation. That is only half the story. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Suffolk's capital provision, he will see an extra £1.2 million for school building this year and, for the coming financial year, no less than £5.3 million for capital spending for Suffolk schools. That is another illustration of a Government who do not just talk about raising standards, but provide resources to see that it happens.

Ms Hodge: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the extra money that they have found to put into schools. Does he share my concern that some local education authorities are not passing on to schools the money that the Government have made available? Would he, in particular, condemn Conservative-controlled councils such as Kensington and Chelsea, which is keeping more than 30 per cent. of its education budget centrally? Will he take steps to make the allocation of education spending at local authority level more transparent so we can see where the money is spent?

Mr. Byers: I deeply regret the decisions taken by the councillors in Kensington and Chelsea not to pass on the considerable additional resources that the Government have provided to them. They will be held accountable in the May local elections by the parents, teachers and governors of the schools of Kensington and Chelsea because of their failure to put education first. That is the top priority of the Government. We have provided the resources and we want local authorities to provide that money to schools so they can join with the Government in raising standards and giving our children the best possible start in life.

Mr. Dorrell: Does the Minister accept that the acid test of the Government's commitment to education will be the movement in school budgets when those have been finalised by local authorities in the next few weeks? Does he not understand that all the rhetoric—of which we have heard more this afternoon—rings hollow in schools around the country where budget increases seem likely to be barely more and, in some cases—as my hon. Friend the

Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said—less than, inflation? Is it not the case that the balloon of expectation pumped up last year by the Government has now burst and that it is clear that the Government's priority is not education, education, education, but presentation, presentation, presentation?

Mr. Byers: That was one prepared a bit earlier today. For the first time in many years, schools throughout the country will have an above-inflation increase in resources—provided by this Government. Every council has had its capping level lifted so that it can passport the new money directly for school spending. That is another illustration of the Government putting standards first. Most importantly, the acid test of the Government will be the fact that, at the end of this Parliament, a greater percentage of our national wealth will be spent on education than when we took office.

Oral Answers to Questions — Citizenship Education

Dr. Tony Wright: What plans he has to include citizenship education in the national curriculum. [29889]

Mr. Blunkett: I have appointed an advisory group on citizenship and democracy under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Crick—with you, Madam Speaker, as its excellent patron—to ensure that we can develop, as part of the review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, both citizenship and democracy education for the future.

Dr. Wright: We have been talking about the importance of educating young people in citizenship for the past 30 years or more; the problem is that we have only ever been talking about it. Will my right hon. Friend respond to the report of the group, when it comes—I congratulate him on setting it up—in terms of two principles; first, that a democracy has an obligation to educate young people in citizenship; secondly, we shall make progress only if it now becomes a requirement, and not merely a recommendation?

Mr. Blunkett: I am keen that we do not repeat the situation that appertained when the previous Labour Government lost office, when Baroness Williams was in my post. She was still talking about this subject when the Government were defeated. We now need action to ensure that the curriculum reflects the critical importance of citizenship and democracy to equip our young people for the world of tomorrow so that they understand the structures of our society and democratic institutions, and their part in holding the Government to account.

Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State ensure that citizenship education also makes an important allowance for educating children on the importance of keeping promises, such as that highlighted in The Times this morning? The report states that the Prime Minister wrote to a Doctor Tillson, assuring her that her children would continue to receive funding under the assisted places scheme until their education at their school was complete. That promise has now been broken. Is that not a bad example for the Government to set?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall ensure not only that people understand the importance of keeping promises, but that


they can read so that they may get the promises right. The promise we made we shall fulfil. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government's scheme to extend assisted places to primary education had not yet been implemented at the point to which he refers.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does not Britain provide less social and civic education than other countries with a national curriculum? In my right hon. Friend's review of the national curriculum, will he consider ways to include the provision of social and civic education?

Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes, and the Minister for School Standards will introduce proposals, in consultation with the Department of Health, so that we can ensure that personal and social education is supported by health education. In that way, we shall have a clear picture of our support and help for young people in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Llwyd: What current review there is of the operational efficiency of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29890]

Dr. Howells: We are looking at the efficiency of all the organisations we fund as part of the departmental spending review.

Mr. Llwyd: Is it not time to evaluate the work and results of TECs? In particular, is it not time to consider whether many of their functions could better be performed by colleges of further and higher education?

Dr. Howells: We are looking closely at what the TECs do so that we can ensure that they are focusing on the objectives of this Government, including providing proper value for money; ensuring that the TECs rid the part of the training and education system that they fund of fraud and abuse; and improving the performance of weaker TECs to the level of the best TECs. Some good TECs are doing valuable work in improving the competitiveness of the regions that they serve.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that the TECs will be investigated. Many of my constituents have been let down by the Wakefield TEC, because the shortage of skills and lack of training has been apparent in an area with many redundant mineworkers. In reviewing the efficiency of TECs, will my hon. Friend take especial interest in the Wakefield TEC, because it has failed many local people?

Dr. Howells: I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues from neighbouring constituencies have assiduously monitored the progress of Wakefield TEC. It has had special problems, of which we are aware. A few improvements have been made recently, which will make a significant difference. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at Wakefield TEC and will draw several lessons from its failure to provide the goods in its training schemes.

Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the generally favourable approach that the Minister is taking to TECs, which he

continues in his replies this afternoon. Will he confirm that almost the only firm decision that was included in the glitzy presentation yesterday was the cut of £150 million in the money available to the TECs, which he has just endorsed? Will he explain why he thinks it sensible to announce a reduction of £150 million in the resources available to a scheme that he supports, before the review that he mentioned earlier takes place?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman has once again completely misunderstood the situation. The TECs have £280 million languishing in their reserve accounts that should be used to provide education and training. Those sums have been sitting there for years in some cases and we aim—we have consulted the TECs on the subject—to make that money work. It will work by providing individual learning accounts, which will improve the lives of the people who live in the regions served by the TECs.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), is not part of the problem of TECs and further education colleges as training providers in areas where there are skills shortages and a higher age of unemployment that insufficient investment has been made in appropriate training opportunities? Will my hon. Friend look at that during his review?

Dr. Howells: That is a central function of the TECs and, where they have failed, it is nothing short of a disgrace. They were set up by the previous Government to provide exactly the sort of functions described by my hon. Friend. During the review, we shall make sure that, in future, no TEC will be guilty of a dereliction of duty of that sort. It is absolutely vital that, if they spend large amounts of taxpayers' money, they spend it well and provide the skills and training required in their regions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Higher Education Funding

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When he plans to meet the chairman of the Standing Conference of Principals to discuss higher education funding. [29892]

Dr. Howells: My right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the chairman of the Standing Conference of Principals, but the Department is in close contact with all the higher education representative bodies.

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that the Secretary of State will urgently review that decision. My constituent, the excellent Professor Norman Taylor, principal of the outstanding Surrey institute of art and design, expects to meet the Secretary of State shortly. The Secretary of State will be aware that students already feel betrayed because, far from accepting the Dearing recommendations—as the Prime Minister rather ill-judgedly asserted yesterday—the Government have rejected Dearing and are abolishing student maintenance grants and hitting the poorest students harder. The principals will make it clear that they are fed up with the mountain of propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's the question?"] I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance—that is a


question—that the beneficiary of those measures will be higher education and not the Treasury.

Dr. Howells: I am aware, Madam Speaker, that you have asked us to deal only with questions. We have just heard a good speech, although I did not believe a word of it. If we are going to talk about betrayal, we believe that the betrayal of students was the reduction by a quarter in funding per unit over the previous 10 years. That was nothing short of a disgrace, and we are going to reverse that.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: When my hon. Friend does meet the principals, will he bear in mind that top-up fees will deter students from lower-income families? Will he stand firm in ensuring that having no top-up fees becomes part of the Government's strategy?

Dr. Howells: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that top-up fees play no part whatsoever in our proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — Further Education Funding

Mr. Allan: What plans he has to give extra funds to the further education sector. [29895]

Mr. Blunkett: The Government have allocated, within the spending control totals, an additional £100 million for further education in the coming year, plus the substantial proportion of new deal expenditure on both day-release and in-house training and the full-time education option available to young people from April onwards.

Mr. Allan: Does the Secretary of State let the House expect the regional development agencies to have a strategic planning role in the provision of the FE sector and its funding in future? How does he expect the relationship between regional development agencies and the regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council to evolve?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I expect there to be a strategic part that regional development agencies can play, both in the planning of further education provision and in terms of the development of meeting skills needs. That is why we appointed Chris Humphries to chair the new skills task force and why it will be working at regional as well as national level. That is why we think that further education has a critical role to play and why "The Learning Age" Green Paper and our consultation will concentrate heavily on sharing with the community as a whole the task of getting it right for the future, so that, instead of snipers and cynics, this country can have a programme that equips the whole nation for the economy of the 21st century.

Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable part of the additional £100 million announced at the end of last year was tied into new initiatives for the colleges and planned growth for next

year and so did not compensate for the loss to colleges of the cutting of the demand-led element by the previous Government? Does he have plans to ensure that colleges will receive further funds for the 1998–99 financial year?

Mr. Blunkett: As I have already said, we have allocated £100 million plus. We cannot compensate automatically for the lost years in which further education was extremely badly treated by the previous Government, with the imposition of enormous productivity gains and changes in unit funding. What I can promise is that the changes in resourcing as a consequence of our changes to funding for further and higher education will ensure that those funds are reinvested, as part of our comprehensive spending review, in lifelong learning as a whole, which includes both further and higher education. The future for further education and lifelong learning is better than any that this country has ever known, and it is our intention to make sure that we get it right.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm the findings of the House of Commons Library research paper that the Government will take £2.5 billion out of the pockets of students in the next three years under their proposals; that, in order to make it even remotely feasible for students to go to university, the Government will have to lend back £2.25 billion to those students, with the result that virtually none of the money that Dearing identified as being needed will be available to put into higher education? That is all of the burden and none of the benefit.

Mr. Blunkett: I can see that we need a numeracy as well as a literacy strategy. I have never heard such claptrap in all my life. We are not taking money off students. We are providing the resources that students need and expanding the amount of money and then collecting—[Interruption.] I am being heckled wonderfully, Madam Speaker. If Opposition Members would listen, they might learn a little. The truth of the matter is that students will then, on a progressive basis, repay only at a time when their income allows them to do so. So we are not taking money from students but providing money for students.
Within five years, we shall have raised through our proposals as much as £800 million for reinvestment. I spelt that out on 23 July and I spell it out again now. I hope that Opposition Members can get it right for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Non-attendance

Mrs. Humble: What measures he is taking to reduce the rate of non—attendance at school. [29896]

Mr. Byers: We are providing direct, practical help by supporting locally devised projects in 119 local education authorities at a total value of £22 million in 1998–99. We have also consulted widely on detailed new guidance for schools on attendance issues and will be issuing the final version of this shortly.

Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the £0.5 million that the two education authorities in my area will receive. Does my hon. Friend agree that projects such as those being developed by Lancashire and the new unitary authority of Blackpool, which involve both parents directly in schemes to combat non-attendance and other agencies, are vital as part of a partnership and a shared approach to deal with this difficult problem?

Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the Government have been able to provide an extra £0.5 million to local education authorities in my hon. Friend's area. It is a clear demonstration that the Government take non-attendance seriously. We believe that children who do not attend school not only lose out on valuable education but drift into crime and anti-social behaviour. That needs to stop and we are now putting measures in place to ensure that it does.

Mr. Bercow: Is the Minister aware of the proportion of cases of truancy in which the parents are unaware of what is happening? It seems essential that, if the problem is to be tackled, we discover at what stage the parents become aware of the activities of their children.

Mr. Byers: For the first time since 1 May, I am going to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Proper education works well when the school and the parents stand shoulder to shoulder with the pupil. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but, looking at the empty expanse of green Benches opposite, I think that we need to have a non-attendance programme for Conservative Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is one of only 17 who have sat through all of Education and Employment questions this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal (Men Over 40)

Mr. MacShane: What proposals he has to extend the new deal programme to men over 40 years of age. [29897]

Mr. Andrew Smith: New deal provision for adults, including men over 40, who have been unemployed for two years or more will start this June. We are also considering piloting the extension of the new deal approach to cover those who have been unemployed for shorter durations.

Mr. MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that, in Rotherham, some 50,000 men lost their jobs under the Tories? The equivalent of five army divisions were destroyed by Conservative economic policies. Those men, many of whom are now too old to get work but too young to die, are the legacy of those wasted Tory years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, excellent as the new deal is for young workers, we should not forget our obligation to men over the age of 40 as our policy develops?

Mr. Smith: We certainly shall not forget them, I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend. That is why, in June, we shall extend the benefits of the new deal to the longer-term older unemployed, and why we are considering how to extend to them the support that the gateway provides, as well as the advisory support that is available and the subsidised employment opportunities. If that can be delivered with the innovation, energy and dedication evident in partnerships such as that which has been pursued in Rotherham, the older unemployed will have hope for the future.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on ISAs, PEPs and TESSAs, followed by a debate on the countryside. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Sixth Day).
THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Until about 7 pm, completion of consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Partial Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Remaining stages of the National Minimum Wage Bill.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
Remaining stages of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 12 MARCH—Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for two weeks. As she knows, we greatly appreciate the fact that she manages to give the House the provisional business for the second week. I know, as does she, that it has been quite tricky to arrange that business this time. We understand that business management is becoming more complex, because it is difficult to predict how long Committee stages will take, and we appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House endeavours to keep her pledge.
May I ask yet again for a debate on the national health service? Last week, we had the embarrassingly steep rise in NHS waiting lists, and this week there has been another embarrassment for the Secretary of State for Health with the disclosure that, despite his protestations, the Public Administration Committee has revealed that he has been

packing NHS trust boards with political nominees. The Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), has rightly criticised the Secretary of State over the fact that 111 out of 113 council appointments came from the Labour party. The House should have a chance to debate those matters in Government time, together with the seven statements made by Health Ministers since the election, given that the only debate on the NHS since 1 May has taken place in Opposition time.
Will the Leader of the House also provide time for a debate on her Government's abuse of this House? I am sorry to have to put it to the right hon. Lady in that manner, because I know that she feels strongly about the issue, given the views that she has expressed in the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. It is important that the House should not be sidelined and insulted by the constant stream of announcements, press briefings, conferences held outside the Chamber and disclosures on the "Today" programme.
Last week, the Leader of the House promised in good faith that the House would be informed before the wider world about the contents of the millennium dome. However, baby dome was announced on the "Breakfast With Frost" programme on Sunday and on Tuesday, the day that the glitzy launch took place at breakfast time, there was a written answer from the dome Minister saying that the Prime Minister's speech on the subject would be placed in the Library when it opened at 10 am, after the launch. The Government's plans for lifelong learning were also disclosed outside the House, and the House was thrown a sop in the form of a written answer.
The consequences for the Government of that arrogance were demonstrated yesterday, when the Minister for the Environment had to come to this place and apologise for briefing an outside group before he briefed the House. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's apology, which was gracefully made. However, it would have been less embarrassing for him and for the Government if their cavalier and rather hostile attitude to the conventions of parliamentary democracy had not made that apology necessary.
I feel sure that the Government will wish to arrange an early debate on social security issues. The amount of pre-Budget press briefing, with or without the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Social Security, has resulted in mess, muddle and confusion. With the Secretary of State supposedly sticking to her line that cuts in lone-parent benefits are necessary—although who could be quite sure—the Chancellor's people telling the press that he has bowed to Back-Bench pressure on lone parent benefit cuts, and the Prime Minister yesterday denying it all, we need a little clarity in that area. The House does not deserve that contempt of parliamentary democracy. I ask the right hon. Lady to insist that her ministerial colleagues adopt the view that she expressed so admirably to the Hansard Society earlier this week.
Finally, as the right hon. Lady said, we shall devote part of our Opposition day to a debate on PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Minister responsible for those matters, the Paymaster General, will reply to that debate?

Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, a senior Treasury Minister will reply to the debate. With regard to the


pre-Budget speculation about the Department of Social Security, the right hon. Lady should take the advice that the Prime Minister offered during Question Time yesterday, when he dealt with that matter very clearly.
As to the right hon. Lady's request for a debate on the national health service, she should read again the report of the Public Administration Committee that was published last week—I thought that Conservative Members might refer to it last week, but, as usual, they are a week or two behind. That report did not criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in the way that the right hon. Lady suggests. All appointments to NHS boards since the election have been made on merit and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is important that we abide by those guidelines, and my right hon. Friend has done that.
The right hon. Lady's other questions were about what she described as abuses of the House. I informed her and the whole House last week that the House would be kept informed about developments regarding the millennium dome. That was the case, and written parliamentary questions were answered. There has been no change of policy. I do not think that many hon. Members would want the House to be used as an exhibition centre or would consider it a good use of our time if we were to examine the details of the dome in this place, when we should be discussing legislation that is currently before us.
With regard to the Green Paper on lifelong learning, the right hon. Lady will recall, as she was a member of the previous Administration, that it was quite exceptional for any Green Paper to be the subject of a statement to the House.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomed the graceful apology, as she described it, given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the right to roam. I wish that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) had been as gracious in accepting that apology. If there was any abuse of the House, it was from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am after another debate on Iraq—not on whether we should bomb or invade, but on what we should do to help the Iraqi people to achieve democracy, peace and economic and social progress. When I raised the matter on Tuesday with the Prime Minister, he twice said that we are doing everything we can to help in those areas. May we have a debate to discuss the details of what we are doing, and what we think we should do, to assist in those areas?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the concern, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people but with Saddam Hussein's regime. My hon. Friend will know that many Government Departments have provided assistance to the people of Iraq. Indeed, during Health Question Time this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health detailed some of the help that was included in that programme. I do not think that it is possible to find time for a debate, but it is important that that information should see the light of day.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that, during the student lobby yesterday,

official police photographers took close-up pictures of some of our constituents in an intimidatory way, to try to discourage them from exercising their normal rights as citizens? Will she inquire whether that is normal practice? In future, will old-age pensioners, the disabled and farmers be photographed in that way? Is not that an abuse of the normal right of access of citizens to the House and to us as Members?
Secondly, has the Leader of the House made representations to the BBC, on behalf of us all, about the way in which it is dumbing down parliamentary and current affairs programmes that report to the nation the many activities of the House? Is she aware that in some parts of my constituency it will be impossible to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament" or "Today in Parliament"? Any increase in the number of times that "The Week in Westminster" will be broadcast—it will have a small audience on a Thursday—simply will not compensate for that. I hope that she will make representations on behalf of the whole House.
Thirdly, is the Leader of the House aware that there is all-party concern about anxieties expressed in all parts of the rural environment, about the way in which 10 months have made even worse the product of 10 years and more of Tory neglect of rural areas? Will she now recognise that there is anxiety on both sides of the House to make real what the Prime Minister is apparently prepared to concede is necessary: a new approach to poverty, deprivation and services in all parts of the rural community?

Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I had not heard anything about the taking of photographs yesterday. I am sure that he has taken that up with the relevant authorities.
On the issue of the BBC, the hon. Gentleman may recall that you, Madam Speaker, invited hon. Members to comment, and I think that you made representations at the time. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport met this morning and questioned senior representatives of BBC Radio on the matter. The Select Committee has asked that no changes be made until it has published its report and recommendations. I am sure that the BBC will consider that request carefully.
On the issue of the countryside, I at least welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the problems in rural areas have been growing for the past 18 years and have not developed in nine months, but it is a false dichotomy to say that there is one group of problems in the countryside and another in urban areas. Many of the Government's policies on health, transport, housing, education and crime are relevant wherever one lives.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend please insist to the BBC that its plans should not include cutting down on scrutiny of Select Committees, which is usually an important part of its reportage? If those outside the House are to know what is happening day by day, they must rely on accurate representations of what we do from the BBC, not on a series of cheerfully written and wholly inaccurate reports that relate only to the individual idiosyncrasies of Members of Parliament.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will recall that one thing that has happened in recent weeks is that the House now


produces, as a result of some of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations, a weekly list of all the Select Committee hearings, stating the topic and who is giving evidence. It is in everyone's interest that there should be a greater awareness of what happens in Select Committees, and serious reporting such as we can get through those programmes is useful to people outside. Those who want that information often find it difficult to get it in other ways.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Following a debate in the other place on 18 February, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in this Chamber on the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism, especially in the light of the extremely worrying comments of the Minister who participated in that debate, who implicitly suggested that the Government would take no action in returning those assets to victims of Nazism? If she cannot find time for a debate, will she at least ask the appropriate Minister to make a statement as soon as possible in this House?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to anticipate that I cannot find time for a debate in the near future. His wisest course of action might be to apply for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. James Wray: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the fluoridation of public water supplies? There has a move by Ministers to push the fluoridation of public water supplies, and I want us to debate the moral and medical aspects of that, because it is in breach of the Food and Drugs Act 1956 and section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, and was thrown out of the Scottish courts under the Water Act 1945. It would be unfair of Ministers to try and push that issue, especially given that there is a free vote in the House and in the Labour party.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will be aware that Ministers, in Scotland and the rest of the country, are consulting on health-related matters, and a Green Paper touches on the issue that he raises. My hon. Friend and others may wish to respond to the consultation that is taking place.

Mr. David Amess: Will the right hon. Lady consider an early debate on local government democracy, particularly on coalition government? Is she aware that last Thursday, Mrs. Lesley Salter won the Chalkwell ward for the Conservative party from the Liberal Democrat party, as a result of which Southend council is now made up of 19 Conservatives, 13 Liberal Democrats and seven Labour councillors? Does she agree that it is improper for the seven Labour councillors to continue to prop up the 13 Liberal Democrats?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that we can have a debate on local government in Southend—or, as some hon. Members have suggested, in Basildon.

Mr. Frank Cook: First, may I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for a further debate

on Iraq? As founding chairman of the all-party land mine eradication group in the House, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the accelerating momentum around the globe for the development and discipline of policies on humanitarian de-mining and clearance of unexploded ordnance? That is of increasing interest. Improving the clearance rate would greatly help third-world aid projects, and there is pressing interest in the level of Government involvement in land mine eradication programmes. I seek a half-day debate on the subject.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises two serious issues. I answered the first when responding to a previous question. The whole House welcomes the progress that has been made on land mine eradication. It is appropriate for the House to debate such issues, but he knows the pressure of business as well as everybody else. I am afraid that I cannot hold out the prospect of an early debate on that matter, important though it is.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the current situation in Northern Ireland, so that the House can explore how far the two Governments have danced to the tune of terrorists, of whatever ilk, and moved from the Mitchell principles? There were to be no preconditions to the talks, but Sinn Fein now says that it will not go back into the talks until it has met the Prime Minister. Sinn Fein is due to return on 9 March; I suspect that it may not go back in until after the purported meeting on 10 March. Surely that should not happen.

Mrs. Taylor: Clearly, the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are serious. All Hon. Members want the talks to succeed, and we are all aware of our responsibilities to choose our words carefully and to try to advance the peace process rather than cause difficulties. At the moment, an early debate is not possible, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tries to keep the House informed. I am sure that that approach will continue.

Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind the fact that during Question Time we had an exchange on citizenship, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is totally unacceptable for the BBC to put forward plans whereby "Yesterday in Parliament" would be broadcast on long wave only? That programme has an audience of more than 1 million people; half, or more, will be lost if the BBC proposals go ahead. "Today in Parliament" lost half its audience when it went on to long wave.
As the House is not divided over the matter, will my right hon. Friend and the shadow Leader of the House make a joint representation to the BBC and tell it that it has no business whatever marginalising the proceedings of Parliament? Without Parliament and our democracy, there would be no BBC. I hope that there will be unanimity on this. Wearing her Commons hat, not her Government hat, will she and the shadow Leader of the House see the BBC people as soon as possible?

Mrs. Taylor: I have already acknowledged the strong feelings on both sides of the House, which were expressed some months ago when the plans saw the light of day. I have also outlined to the House the action taken today


by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The BBC chairman will be available in the House on 12 March to meet hon. Members on the matter. A meeting between Madam Speaker and the chairman has already been arranged for 17 March. I hope that there will be sufficient opportunity to ensure that the BBC is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on both sides of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Lady make time for a full debate in Government time on countryside issues, because they are undoubtedly at or near the top of the list of parliamentary anxieties? Does she agree that it might be worth while attaching to Bills a rural impact statement, to test the interests of rural communities against those of towns, to ensure greater equity? Does she further agree that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer put more duty on petrol, he would be inveighing against rural areas?

Mrs. Taylor: I think it right to assess the environmental impact of legislation when it is introduced, regardless of the nature of that legislation. I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's basic premise that the issue is "rural versus town". I do not think that it does anyone any good to try to portray it in that way, or to try to pretend that the problems that have arisen in rural areas have become apparent only in the past nine months.

Gillian Merron: There has been publicity recently relating to the industrial tribunal criticisms of Lincolnshire police authority and the handling of grievance and disciplinary procedures, which have been the subject of investigation by Humberside police—although, regrettably, their report remains secret. Will my right hon. Friend allow a full debate on the matter, so that we can make progress in increasing openness and effectiveness?

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has asked questions about the issue before. Fortuitously, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present, and will have heard what she has said today. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will find other ways in which to pursue the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the action that the BBC may take to reduce coverage of Parliament's activities, and I thank the Leader of the House for taking such a positive stance. May I express the hope that the governors and chairman of the BBC will note what Parliament feels—and what I think people outside feel—before taking any irrevocable action?
Can the Leader of the House also tell us when a statement will be made, or a debate take place, about the roads review that is currently being undertaken?

Mrs. Taylor: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard during the consultations that I mentioned—and I am sure that the fact that the chairman of the BBC is to be in the House has not escaped his notice. Given the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I expect that he will be present then. I think that a positive stance has been adopted on all sides.
I am afraid that I cannot say anything about the roads review at this stage, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is warned of when it will be completed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If there is a statement or a debate about the implications of the march of the rural communities, will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind? I speak as someone who has been in the House for more than 20 years, representing a rural constituency 30 miles long and about 20 miles wide. One of the problems that we face in the rural villages—more than 20 altogether—is that they were utterly ruined by the last Tory Government, who shut every single pit in every single pit village, and created a BSE crisis that has hammered all the small farmers in my constituency. Almost all the ruin and breakdown of the social fabric has been a direct result of what was done by those Tories, many of whom will be cheering people on at the beacons and in Hyde park on Sunday. Let the country know where the trouble started, and let us remember that we shall have to mend all the problems created by that lousy lot.

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye during Tuesday's debate, Madam Speaker. As someone who has represented a rural constituency for more than 20 years, he is well placed to examine the problems that exist there. I think that rural areas gave their verdict on the last Government—and it is significant that there are now more Labour Members representing rural constituencies than Tories and Liberal Democrats put together.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a debate on the relationship between the House of Commons and the Government in the context of the extent to which the Government are increasingly refusing to answer questions tabled by Members of Parliament? Does the Leader of the House realise the number of occasions on which written questions in particular, but also oral questions, are met with what amounts to a point-blank refusal to divulge information that should rightly be in the public domain, not only now but particularly in the light of the oft-repeated claims by her Government that they believe in open government? Surely it is time for a debate on that matter, in order to get it out into the open and regularise it.

Mrs. Taylor: As a member of the former Government, the right hon. Gentleman is showing his usual lack of memory in these matters. There have always been holding answers and limited answers. More questions are being asked and, often, the quality of the answer reflects the quality of the question.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I am sure that I speak on behalf of many colleagues from the Merseyside area if I once again appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give consideration to a full debate in the House on the Hillsborough disaster. My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the week since the publication of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report, there has been intense and increasing concern and anger on Merseyside and in the wider region.
The whole affair gives rise to a wide range of issues relating to the management of disasters and their aftermath. A full debate in the House would, for once,


give us a full and adequate opportunity to address the issues. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might even welcome an opportunity to make a full response on the record. A debate would also provide a full opportunity to explore what could and should be done about what my constituents regard as an unclosed chapter of history.

Mrs. Taylor: There is to be an Adjournment debate, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), a week on Monday. I am sure that that will not be considered sufficient to cover all the issues that hon. Members would like to raise. We all have enormous sympathy for those involved, and we understand hon. Members' desire to raise those issues. However, as last week, I have to say that I do not rule out the possibility of a debate on the matter, but I do not want to raise false hopes that there can be an early debate in Government time.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Lady grant the House an early debate on foreign affairs, so that right hon. and hon. Members may have an opportunity to hold Her Majesty's Government to account on their policy towards European Union enlargement, which is supposedly at the heart of their Euro-presidential efforts? That is particularly important in the light of early-day motion 827 on Estonia, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and signed by 39 hon. Members.
[That this House notes the importance of the 80th anniversary of Estonian independence on 24th February; welcomes the decision to include Estonia in the first wave of European Union enlargement negotiations, due to start under the UK Presidency of the European Union in April 1998; notes that Tallinn, the capital, is a thriving city with a successful stock market, banking, business and insurance sectors, is a growing tourist destination and presents increasing opportunities for British business investment; notes the positive efforts made by Tallinn City Council to prepare for membership of the European Union and to promote the inclusion of the Russian minority; and calls on the UK Government to encourage British investment in Estonia and the UK's relations with Estonia.]
The right hon. Lady will be aware that the President of Estonia is in this country this week, and it would be a symbolic gesture and would be warmly welcomed if Her Majesty's Government could give that commitment.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is important, but he will know that I have announced the business for the next two weeks and that much of the following week is to be taken up by the Budget debate. Important though those issues are, it is not always easy to find time when hon. Members request it. I shall bear that in mind, but I cannot raise hopes of an early debate.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the Leader of the House squeeze some time out of the calendar to allow a proper debate and a Division on the BBC? All the protests have been made and the BBC continues to show complete contempt for anything said in the House. Putting

"Yesterday in Parliament" on long wave is like sending it to Siberia—all we get on long wave is Radio Baghdad. Putting "The Week in Westminster" on Thursday means that no hon. Member is likely to be able to listen to it. Sending the chairman down here is not enough. He may be bland, but we are not blind. We do not want this public relations schmoozing; we want a proper debate. I think that a deeper strategy is involved, because I believe that certain senior BBC executives want to decouple the BBC from the public and the nation and possibly want to privatise it. The House must take this much more seriously than simply meeting the odd delegation or sending the odd letter of protest.

Mrs. Taylor: The action that I have already outlined—that the Select Committee will report on the matter, that the chairman of the BBC will be made available in the House to discuss it, and that he is to meet you, Madam Speaker—is not mutually incompatible with a debate: the problem is finding time for one. One way of securing a debate would be if many hon. Members were to enter the ballot for a one-and-a-half-hour Wednesday morning debate. By the law of averages, one of them might be successful.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady find time for a statement next week by the President of the Board of Trade, in which she can clarify, once and for all, whether the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, has paid to charity the profit on the sale of his BP shares? Lord Simon gave a specific public undertaking to make that donation. The right hon. Lady will recall that I have raised that issue before. When I last raised it with her, she claimed that Lord Simon had done the right and proper thing. Did she mean by that that the donation had been made: yes or no?

Mrs. Taylor: As I have said before, my noble Friend has done the right and proper thing, by obeying all the established rules on the conduct of Ministers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As we are not yet, alas, out of the Iraqi marsh, may I hark back to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), and ask the Leader of the House to reflect again that it is not sufficient to say that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people? As a letter from four recent ambassadors to Baghdad, Sir Donald Maitland and our arms negotiator, David Summerhayes, in today's issue of The Independent makes clear, there are real on-going problems. The Leader of the House replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire that the Secretary of State for Health had made a comment during Health questions, at column 172, in reply to a question from me, but that was—necessarily—a very brief comment. Before Easter, could she not reflect on whether we should have a follow-up debate?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that we can have a debate in the near future on that specific point. My hon. Friend is a very experienced hon. Member and very often finds time to raise issues, regardless of the fact that there will not be a debate in Government time.

Mr. David Tredinnick: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have yet to


respond to the report of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament on delegated legislation and its scrutiny. Does she propose to introduce measures to improve the scrutiny of delegated legislation? Does she not think that the time has come for a full debate on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, which is of great concern to many hon. Members?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government recently submitted a memorandum on the scrutiny of European legislation to the Modernisation Committee. We are considering also what has to be said about delegated legislation. The best course of action is for the Modernisation Committee to examine the issues. It may be appropriate for the House to debate those matters at some stage, but not in the immediate future.

Dr. Tony Wright: May I ask one more question on broadcasting? Although we have heard that the BBC's proposals to restrict parliamentary broadcasting are causing distress in the House, the proposals from all broadcasters effectively to withdraw party political broadcasting are causing distress across the nation. Those matters are important and involve not only party managers, broadcasters or even individual hon. Members: they are House matters and democracy matters. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Modernisation Committee, but we have no guarantee that its reports will be debated in the House. Will she give us an assurance that, in the near future, those matters will at least be debated by the House?

Mrs. Taylor: The proposal that I made for several hon. Members to enter the ballot for the hour-and-a-half debates might be the best way forward.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is considerable concern among professional providers of child care about suggestions by the Government that it may be possible rapidly to train large number of school leavers to engage in child care activities? Does she accept that child care is desperately important and that it should be done well? May we have an urgent debate on training for child care?

Mrs. Taylor: I certainly agree that training is important, as is child care itself. The steps that are being taken, in the welfare-to-work programmes, for example, are ensuring that quality training is available.

Ms Helen Southworth: May we have an early debate on the unfair competition represented by out-of-town shopping centres that provide free car parking? It is an issue which is particularly pertinent to my constituency, where the town centre is the vibrant hub of a local community. People there are working to provide an integrated and sustainable transport policy, recognising that car parking charges are an important factor within that.

Mrs. Taylor: There will be questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday, and it might be possible for my hon. Friend to raise that issue then. Failing that, I can only recommend trying to secure an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: We have all seen the expensive television advertisements about the

new deal, but I am concerned about the silent majority whose voice is not heard. May we have a debate on the impact of the windfall tax on people who work in the utilities and who may lose their jobs because of the utilities' inability to invest the money that they would otherwise have invested and because the utilities will no longer be able to peg their prices? I raise that matter following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about some hon. Members not being able to obtain proper answers from Ministers via the Table Office.

Mrs. Taylor: We debated the windfall tax last summer, and the House endorsed the Government's proposals.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to see the excellent exhibition by the Design Council in the Upper Waiting Hall, which covers some of the exciting products in the millennium product challenge fund? Is she aware that we have not had a debate on design innovation for a long time? Design innovation is at the heart of this country's competitive edge. Will she not only visit the exhibition, perhaps with some senior colleagues, but arrange a debate on that important subject?
Finally, would not it be better for the whole nation if the BBC spent a little more time broadcasting what we say in the House instead of spending so much time being anti the millennium and the millennium exhibition?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. As for the Design Council exhibition, I saw it briefly one morning this week. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will encourage other hon. Members to see it. As for a debate on design innovation, he will not be surprised to hear me repeat what I said before about parliamentary time and the difficulties that I would have in finding Government time for such a debate. Of course, there are Trade and Industry questions on Thursday and, as a regular attender at those, he might well find the opportunity to make some of the points that he has made today.

Mr. Bill Rammell: May we have an early debate on the importance of local education authorities prioritising education spending, as the Government have done? I should like to inform my right hon. Friend of the situation in my local authority area of Essex, where the move from a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration to a Conservative one on 1 April meant a move from four years of consistently spending above the standard spending assessment to a proposed Conservative budget £3.5 million below the SSA. That has meant a complete, sudden and brutal cessation of discretionary awards to dance and drama students. There are six potential such students in my constituency who have gained places at prestigious dance and drama colleges but who are finding their life chances being taken away by the new Conservative administration. May I ask for an early debate on this subject and, through my right hon. Friend, ask Education Ministers to ask those Conservative councillors in Essex to rethink their decision, even at this late stage?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made his point well and informed the House of the new priorities of the


Conservatives in Essex. He will not be surprised at my saying that there is no Government time for the debate that he requests. He may be fortunate in securing an Adjournment debate, although we shall soon be discussing the remaining stages of education Bills, and he may find that he can raise some of the issues then.

Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the multilateral agreement on investment is an issue of profound significance to trade and industry in this country and many others? The negotiations are currently taking place in Paris and the agreement may be signed shortly after Easter, so will she discuss the matter with her Cabinet colleagues and ensure that, before the Government sign any agreement, there is a full debate on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that there have been two debates on the matter—there was certainly one earlier this week—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government's position clear last week, if not the week before, at Question Time. If my hon. Friend wants to raise any outstanding points, he could try to do so during Trade and Industry questions on Thursday, but I do not think that a full debate on the matter is possible in the near future, simply because we are very short of time on the Floor of the House.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: At my surgery about a week ago, I met a father whose son urgently needed his tonsils removed but had been told that he would have to wait up to eight months on the national health service, even though the same surgeon could perform the operation privately the following week. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider her decision on a debate on the national health service, so that Labour Members can raise such issues as consultants' contracts and the deliberate manipulation of waiting lists to favour the private sector? We want to expose the dire legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government, and correct some of the misinformation that Conservative Members are giving about what we need to do to rebuild the national health service.

Mrs. Taylor: Since the Government came to office, we have announced an extra £1.5 billion for the health

service—£300 million for this year and £1.2 billion for next year—so it is extremely tempting to arrange such a debate. However, my hon. Friend is aware of our priorities in the legislative programme. I shall certainly bring his specific point to the attention of Ministers, but if he wants to take those local issues further, I can only suggest that he takes his chances with all the other hon. Members in the ballot for an Adjournment debate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about the BBC and associate the Opposition with the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon? Will she go one stage further and write to the chairman of the BBC today, enclosing a copy of Hansard containing the exchanges that have taken place, and ask him to see her personally when he comes to the House on 12 March? If she wants my right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and me to be present, we should be glad to do that.
Will the right hon. Lady also clarify a point that she made in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Norfolk? She said that a senior Treasury Minister would reply to the debate on TESSAs and PEPs, but sidestepped the specific question whether the Paymaster General would reply. Will she assure us that there will not be another evasion, such as occurred when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sat in the Smoking Room while the House debated beef on the bone? The Paymaster General is specifically responsible for these matters, and we expect him to reply.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman protests too much. There will be two Government speakers during that debate: my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will open the debate and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will close it. We are treating the debate as we treat every other—extremely seriously.
I am more than happy to ensure that a copy of the Hansard report of the exchanges is sent to the chairman of the BBC. How we take the matter further, especially as Madam Speaker has already planned to meet the chairman, should perhaps best be discussed through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 February].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Amendment moved [24 February]: No. 26, in page 1, line 24, leave out from 'region' to 'shall' in line 29 on page 2.—[Mr. Trimble.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 9, in page 1, line 25, leave out from 'be' to end of line 26 and insert
'an open regional list system.
3A. An open regional list system is a system which complies with the following requirements, namely—

(a) each electoral region shall be divided into a number of constituencies equal to the number of MEPs to be elected for that region in accordance with subsection 2(4) above and Schedule 1;
(b) each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;
(c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;
(d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub-paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent, and;
(e) if an elected candidate has nominated a constituency which no candidate elected before him has nominated, he shall represent that constituency even if a candidate elected before him, whose own nominated constituency has been taken, seeks to choose it.'.

No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 and insert
'in one of the following ways:

(a) for a registered party;
(b) for a candidate listed as a member of a registered party; or
(c) for an individual candidate not listed as a member of a registered party.'.

No. 51, in page 2, line 2, after 'candidate,', insert
'whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered party,'.
No. 2, in page 2, line 4, after 'candidate', insert
'not listed as a member of a registered party'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 4, after 'votes' insert
', with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party.'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'number' to end and insert 'shown below.


Number of seats already allocated
Divisor


2
3


3
5


4
7


5
9


6
11


7
13


8
15


9
17


10
19.'


No. 5, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 18 and insert 'as follows—


(a) a quota shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes polled for all the parties, divided by the number of seats to be allocated, plus one.
(b) votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs.
(c) where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate will then be topped up to reach the quota using votes from the party vote, reducing the number of votes won by the party accordingly.
(d) this process continues for each candidate on the list until the party votes have been exhausted, except where there are insufficient votes in the party vote to top up a candidate, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes, who moves one place up the list.'.


No. 6, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(7A) The style of the front of the ballot papers to be used shall be in the form set out in Schedule (European Parliament Ballot Paper).
No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24.
No. 11, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28.
New clause 4—Evaluation by Secretary of State of open list system and method of allocating seats—
'.—After section 7 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Evaluation by Secretary of State of open list system and method of allocating seats


7A.—(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the first election held under the regional list system set out in section 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament, setting out what appear to him to be the principal advantages and disadvantages of conducting subsequent such elections by an open list system.
(2) A report under subsection (1) above may also contain proposals for changing the arrangements for the allocation of seats set out in this Act.
(3) In this section, 'open list system' means an electoral system in which the names of those candidates on a party's list


are listed on the ballot paper and each voter can choose whether to cast his vote either—

(a) for a registered party, or
(b) for an individual candidate, whether or not that candidate is on a party's list of candidates.".'.



Amendment No. 27, in schedule 2, page 8, leave out lines 19 to 25.

'EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BALLOT PAPER


EASTERN ENGLAND CONSTITUENCY


ELECTION OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


You may vote in one of two ways:


EITHER

□

□

□

□




Put 'X' in one of these boxes to indicate the party of your choice

Conservative Party

Green Party

Labour Party

Liberal Democrats




OR Put 'X' in one of these boxes to indicate the candidate of your choice

Conservative Party

Green Party

Labour Party

Liberal Democrats

Others



□
FORBES
□
SKYLARK
□
CLARKE
□
HOLDER
□
THWAITE



Annabel
Daniel
Winston
Maureen
Norman


SOCIALIST


LABOUR



□
SMYTHE
□
ANDREWS
□
BLACK
□
CHAUDHRI
□
KENT



Sir Alan
Melanie
Michael
Ajit
Anthony


PROCANING



□
PARSONS
□
VALERIAN
□
PETERS
□
HUSSEIN
□
McINTYRE



Giles
Jennifer
Angela
Rupal
Lord


NATURAL LAW PARTY



□
SIDCUP
□


SVENSON
□
ELLERTON
□
MUIR



Lady Anne


Bob
Sir Paul
Seymour


INDEP'NT



□
BIRCH
□


BELL
□
BEDFORD
□
SMEDLEY



Dominic


Celia
Baroness (Anne)
Jemima


MARXIST



□
PRESSMAN


□
UL-HAQ
□
MEADOWS





Marlene


Tariq
Simon





□
LANCASTER


□
POTTER
□
GOLSTEIN





Sir Alfonse


Amelia
Samuel





□
TRUSTFUL


□
CHAPLIN
□
HUNTER





Derek


Nazalia
Sarah

Mr. David Trimble: After the debate had finished at 10 pm on Tuesday, I reflected that perhaps I had been too generous in taking interventions, because, had I not done so, I might have finished my speech and would not be standing here today. None the less, those interventions raised interesting points.
When the debate finished, 1 was responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)

Amendment No. 79, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
'(3C) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision requiring party lists of candidates and nominations of individual candidates to be supported by signatures of electors in the relevant constituency, and may specify the numbers of signatures required.'.
New schedule 1—
to correct what I thought was a misapprehension when he 4.20 pm said of the single transferable vote system that
people lose the ability to make a clear choice when their vote is shuffled through the system".— [Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 272.]
I was about to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was wrong to suggest that votes are shuffled through the system under STV. If votes are transferred, it is because the elector has indicated a preference.
Votes are not transferred automatically. Under the STV system, it is common for an elector to plump—to mark only one preference. Consequently, the vote is never transferred. It is counted for the person in respect of whom the elector has indicated a first preference, and that is it. If a vote transfers to anyone else it is because the elector has indicated a preference.
As I was saying on Tuesday, when STV was introduced in Northern Ireland, the electors took it very seriously and considered very carefully the way in which they marked their preferences, in terms of voting not just for parties and candidates within those parties, but for other individuals on the list.

Mr. William Cash: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. If I used the word "shuffled", I should be happy to alter it to "transferred". However, irrespective of whether a voter has preferences, he has a higher preference for one candidate as opposed to another. It is clear that the second preference has a much lower order of priority. The first-past-the-post system provides a real choice. Although we could debate the issue ad nauseam, there is something inherently unsatisfactory about the second preference being given the advantage over the first choice.

Mr. Trimble: I shall return to the merits and demerits of the first-past-the-post system and the elections for which it is appropriate.
Preferences and the expression of preferences in STV allow the elector to make a sophisticated judgment on individuals and parties. Those preferences can be used not simply to vote for candidates or parties, but to vote against others. It is common in Northern Ireland for people to shape their preferences—parties advise them to shape their preferences—to express positive and negative preferences. That gives the electorate a wider choice, enabling them to express things in a more sophisticated manner. That is part of the attraction of STV. All systems have advantages and disadvantages. I am dwelling on the advantages of STV, but I shall outline its disadvantages as well.
I emphasise that STV has resulted in quite keen electoral interest, which we must all bear in mind. Given the very large constituencies as a result of the Bill—even with the single transferable vote system, there will be large constituencies—something that excites the electors' interest is of value. In addition, political parties have to adopt their voting and transfer strategies. They cannot just sit back and leave it to the electorate. Parties have to consider responses and decide what to do.
One of the criticisms that we commonly make about STV—we are aware of its flaws—is that it encourages competition between candidates of a party. The normal strategy for a party under the STV system is to run one more candidate than the number of the seats that the party thinks it will win. If, by virtue of experience and opinion polls, it is considered that two of a party's candidates will be elected, the standard advice is to run three candidates. One must always allow for the possibility that the party will do better than expected. An extra candidate would take advantage of a movement of opinion in favour of a party.
Running an extra candidate above the number that the party expects will be elected means that probably at least one person will not be elected. That gives rise to

competition between candidates. Ideally, one would hope that such competition attracts voters to the party, although candidates quickly conclude that it is easier to persuade people who are already committed to their party to switch from party candidate A to party candidate B than to persuade someone who is not in favour of one's party to switch their allegiance. Competition therefore develops between candidates, which can sometimes be taken to quite interesting extremes.
I remember the case of a former colleague who, back in 1982, stood as one of our six candidates in the 10-seat South Antrim constituency. Our most prominent candidate was then James Molyneaux, now Lord Molyneaux. The party poster listed all six candidates in alphabetical order. The gentleman in question decided to emphasise that his name was first alphabetically by excising from the poster—literally cutting out—the four names between his and Jim Molyneaux's. He tried to get on to Jim's coat tails by that device. I cannot remember whether it succeeded.

Rev. Martin Smyth: indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend, who was elected in a different constituency in that election, is nodding, so the stratagem may have succeeded—although the success may also have been a consequence of one other feature of STV, which, in my eyes, although not in the eyes of others, is a serious disadvantage. It is thought to be a significant advantage if one's name starts with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet. However, that is not always an advantage; it depends on circumstances.
Although we consider competition between candidates a disadvantage of STV generally, such a cloud may have a silver lining in European parliamentary elections. It will help to open up the debate on Europe in parties, and enable the electorate to take part in that debate and express preferences for the views on European issues of particular candidates in a particular party.
On Europe, the debate is not between, but within, parties. Pro and sceptical attitudes exist within all three parties and, consequently, a transferable vote system—or a system that enables the electorate to distinguish between candidates for a particular party—will allow the electorate to distinguish between particular wings of a party on these issues. That will develop the debate within the parties and enable the electorate to take part, and their view might be interesting.
That might be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Stone, who is a vigorous participant in the debate within the Conservative party. He might welcome a system that enabled the electorate to join in. Obviously, it would be a stronger point for him if he believed that the electorate would join in on his side—and he may believe that. I commend the system to him on that basis.
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Stone raised another point about the first-past-the-post system. It is generally known that our party has expressed a preference for that system for many years, and we must deal with the issue in case we are accused of inconsistency. We would never advocate a single transferable vote system, or any proportional electoral system, for elections to this House. We are endorsing STV as the electoral method for the proposed Northern Ireland assembly, and the amendment does


likewise with regard to the European Parliament. However, we draw clear distinctions between regional assemblies and the European Parliament and this House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I followed the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Tuesday through my magic machine. If we accept the position that he has just elucidated, there will be an inevitable move towards proportional representation in this House, whatever we say. Once the gate is opened, the arguments that are used constantly to encourage people to believe that proportional representation is somehow fairer will result in a push towards Members of the House of Commons being elected that way.

Mr. Trimble: The floodgates are already open. Proportional representation has been operating in Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, and is being proposed by the hon. Lady's party for Scotland and Wales. One can stem the tide for this House by the argument that I was about to make.
The reason why I draw a distinction between elections to this House and those to other places is that elections to the House are to elect a Government. There are arguments for having an electoral system that reflects a broad spread of opinion, and that is fine if we are dealing with a body where the premium is on having the broadest range of representation and where there is no need for clear policy decisions.
If—as in the House—we have to sustain a Government, that Government must make clear decisions. We want the electorate to be able to make choices, because a PR system will produce a range of representation and will result in coalitions having to be formed. The real policy choices are then in the construction of coalitions, and those take place after elections, rather than before.
The paradox is that PR—which represents a wide range of views—may result in the electorate not being able to choose a Government, which would be created after the event by the deals that people do. For that reason, I believe strongly that the first-past-the-post system must be retained for the House and for the formation of Governments.
Regional assemblies for the United Kingdom will be essentially administrative and will not make major policy decisions, although I know that will not be welcome news for the strong proponents of devolution. I recall the comments made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign when he likened the proposed Scottish Parliament to an English parish council. That was a bold comparison—the Scottish Parliament will go far beyond a parish council, but it will still be essentially an administrative body.
The Scottish Parliament will not have the power to take major policy decisions; nor will the Northern Ireland assembly. In the current inter-party talks, we constantly remind other parties—which are more ambitious in their views—of the realities of life, including the fact that the Northern Ireland assembly will not share the characteristics of a government.
Similarly, the European Parliament does not have to sustain a government. The European legislature is the Council of Ministers, and the European executive, in so

far as there is one, is the European Commission. The European Parliament is a consultative body, and there is a strong argument for ensuring that a wide range of views is represented there.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, studied the Amsterdam treaty in some detail, as some of us have. Has he noticed that it will grant extensive powers to the European Parliament, which have been minimised by the Government because they do not want people to know what is going on? The reality is that, under the procedures for majority voting and co-decision, the arrangements for an individual member state to achieve its objectives will be severely curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman's argument will be eroded by the Amsterdam treaty, because the Council of Ministers will be given increased supranational powers in the movement towards one country called Europe.

Mr. Trimble: I defer to the hon. Gentleman in his knowledge of the detail of the treaty. None the less, my point remains valid, because the legislature in Europe is the Council of Ministers. Provisions are made to give the European Parliament some influence, but it is still only a consultative body. The argument that 1 made earlier to justify the retention of the first-past-the-post system for the House of Commons does not, therefore, apply to the European Parliament, and I hope that it never will. I do not believe that European institutions will develop in such a way that the European Parliament will acquire the characteristics of a genuine parliament or will be required to support a government.
All electoral systems have characteristics and biases, and we must choose between them. They all produce representation to a greater or lesser extent, and we should be open about the effect that is sought for a particular institution. That is why I drew a distinction between the need for the first-past-the-post system for the House of Commons and a representative system for elsewhere.
The representative system that I have suggested for the European Parliament would place a premium on producing a proportional result and would give the electorate considerable influence in deciding the representation of the various parties. Although list systems may produce proportional results, they do not give the electorate the opportunity to choose. The closed list system, in particular, has the disadvantage of favouring party leaderships, which is, of course, why it has been proposed.
The system proposed by the Liberal Democrats is an unhappy compromise. I especially dislike the formula that the Liberal Democrats propose in amendment No. 4 for the allocation of seats. It has been deliberately chosen to favour small parties and departs from the clarity and simplicity of the d'Hondt formula. We debated that issue in some detail in 1996, and eventually chose the d'Hondt formula. If one is to have a list system, it is better to have the d'Hondt formula, rather than the proposal in amendment No. 4, which is designed simply to be advantageous to smaller parties. On that issue, the Liberal Democrats, like some other parties, want to get their thumb on the wheel.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and, later, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam


(Mr. Allan) will seek to deploy the case for the Sainte-Lague, rather than the d'Hondt, system—it is, after all, used in a great many countries. However, on his earlier point, does he not recognise that if we are to have a list system, which is not our highest preference either, it is much better to have one with open lists, whereby the public have some influence over the choice of candidates, than one with closed lists?

Mr. Trimble: As I said on Tuesday, it would be much better still to go the whole hog. If the Liberal Democrats were to go the whole hog and support our amendment, they would be supporting their first preference. At this stage, they ought to express their first preference; if they have to haul down their sights later, so be it. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for providing the name of other formula—the one that is biased in their favour—which I confess I had forgotten.
On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that the legislation was providing a test run on proportional representation. I want to repeat a point I made on Tuesday, which is that test runs on proportional representation have already happened: they happened in Northern Ireland, and hon. Members should look closely at that example. Having looked at the two different systems that have been applied in Northern Ireland, we think that the advantage lies with the single transferable vote system.
The Liberal Democrats confirmed on Tuesday and again just now that the single transferable vote is their preferred system—the system which they would go for if they could, and if they were not scared of offending the Government. They should remember that the STV system was introduced into the United Kingdom by the Conservatives and, when it was reintroduced in modern times, it was the Conservatives who did that; the Labour Government who followed them endorsed and re-enacted the STV system.
Therefore, my amendment offers a proposal which is the first preference of the Liberal Democrats and has been introduced by the Conservatives and endorsed by Labour. On that basis and if rationality were to apply, I would expect all of them to rally round the amendment.

Mr. James Clappison: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9, 51, 10 and 11, which stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall seek your leave, Sir Alan, to press for separate votes on amendments No. 9 and 10, which deal with important subjects.
I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He raised some important points and I shall touch on three of those, as they lend support to the arguments that I shall deploy in support of our amendments. The first point was about candidates' order of priority on the ballot paper. In a closed list system, the ranking of candidates is an important matter.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful point about what happens under the new system when a Member of the European Parliament crosses the floor and moves from one party to another, but the response he received from the Home Secretary was not really satisfactory. The point is this: under the new system, MEPs will be elected under a party banner and not, in any sense, as individuals. If they cross the floor and join another party,

it cannot be pretended that they are in the same position as a Member of this Parliament who crosses the Floor, which was the argument the Home Secretary used.
Members of Parliament are elected as individuals, but MEPs are not—they are elected purely on a party basis and that fact has implications that have not been sufficiently answered.
I was also interested in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments about the differences between, and the reasons for using, different systems for different assemblies.

Mr. Robert Syms: On the point of people who switch parties, the situation is worse than my hon. Friend says. Under our current system, when people are nominated, the process ends with an election. Under a list system, people are nominated for four years—until the next election. A situation can arise where, although the next person on the list has long left one's party, that person may fill a vacancy.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend made some important points in earlier debates, and he has hit the nail on the head again today.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the first-past-the-post system has served the House of Commons and this country well and has provided us with stable government. However, the arguments go further and extend in favour of using the first-past-the-post system for European elections as well. It is our belief that first past the post is the best way of ensuring quality representation on behalf of electors and a good quality of MEPs in Europe. All I say now in support of the amendments will be coloured by our conviction that the first-past-the-post system has served us well in this country and in Europe.
There is evidence of the first-past-the-post system earning wide admiration, not only in this country, but throughout Europe. Many MEPs from other countries view with admiration our first-past-the-post system. In order to dismiss that system, which has served this country well, the Government will have to do better than the bald statement in the Home Office press announcement, which stated:
The relationship between Members of the European Parliament and their constituents is by its nature different to the closer ties expected of a Westminster MP.
We accept that the work of an MEP is different—we have heard that from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who have served as MEPs. In many cases, MEPs work for a different clientele, but they also serve individual constituents and we believe that a constituency system serves the interests of electors and helps MEPs to discharge their functions and form relationships with the different groups in the constituency.
Amendment No. 9 is designed to reintroduce the link between an MEP elected under the new system of voting—of which we do not approve, but there it is—and a constituency. We find it hard to understand arguments against that link, because it will help MEPs to serve their constituents.
That answers the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Tuesday. He asked:
Who will identify with what and how will they go about it?
Under the new system, how will MEPs elected on a list of seven, eight or even 10 Members representing a giant constituency go about their task? My right hon. Friend asked about what would happen on the day after the election:
Will it be a colonial carve-up with the appointment of divisional governorships of various parts of the region?"—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 230.]
Will the MEPs sit down and decide what each of them will do? Would it not be better if, from the outset, there was a known constituency system and a constituency link about which the electorate knew in advance? As a result, after the election, each elector would know which individual MEP was serving his or her constituency.

Mr. Beith: I recognise that the purpose of amendment No. 9 is to attach a constituency to a Member of the European Parliament, once that Member has been elected. That is a perfectly fair aim, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that to describe that as an "open regional list system" is misleading? It is not an open list system in the sense that it would give voters the opportunity to change the slate of candidates put forward by the party. Perhaps, on reflection, it might have been better to describe it differently.

Mr. Clappison: I make common cause with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the list system. Our amendment is designed to combine the new voting system—which we do not like—with a constituency system. I certainly make common cause with criticism of the Government's proposal for a list system. In fact, I would go further. I think that it is difficult—almost impossible—for anyone to defend it. It has been widely criticised and is recognised as a system which leads to party placement. I shall deal with that in the debate on a later amendment, and I shall now confine my comments to support for this amendment.

Mr. Cash: While I recognise the difficulties inherent in having to keep pace with the times, and given that Labour has a massive majority and is determined to drive through a system of regional lists, may I invite my hon. Friend to accept that the long title of the Bill—whatever advice my hon. Friend may have received—does not appear to preclude the idea that we should insist on a first-past-the-post system?
Does my hon. Friend accept that we are getting dangerously close to accepting the principle of regional lists, and that that may be held against us in due course? I urge him to consider carefully the significance of the wording that has been adopted in amendment No. 9 and, for that matter, amendment No. 53.

Mr. Clappison: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. I thought that I had given a sufficient health warning, but if I have not, I make it even clearer now that we support the first-past-the-post system. We believe that the proposed system is a bad system, and we have tabled our

amendment to improve the system a little bit. It will be an improvement to have a constituency link for individual Members.
There is common ground between this group of amendments and an earlier group. The amendments that deal with the size of the regions are based on arguments that link directly into the argument about constituencies. The regions that the Government have decreed are so vast, so incoherent, so lacking in justification and will be so difficult for electors to understand or MEPs to represent that we believe that it will be an improvement to divide them into constituencies. I have listened to the debate, and I have found little compelling argument in favour of the proposed regions and constituencies.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made some comments about a town in Scotland—I think it was Eyemouth. He chose it as an extreme example. Does it make it any easier or better to put that town into not just the south of Scotland but a vast region covering the whole of the rest of Scotland, with a list of MEPs to represent it? The town would be thrown in not just with the south of Scotland but with central Scotland, the highlands and islands—to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred—and so on. Does that make any sense? Surely it makes the problem even worse.

Mr. Richard Allan: We suggested that it could not make it any worse and would have the advantage of creating a team of MEPs working on a regional basis with other regional organisations. They would have a single voice in defending the interests of Scotland. The fundamental problem is that the constituencies are already so large that the connections just are not there.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman must accept in all fairness that it is a pretty vast region. There is a problem with the argument that he and his right hon. Friend have advanced. It is a trap that people who argue on the basis of what they see as an extreme example fall into. The extreme example under the present system is infinitely better than the best of the new system. The new system will involve a group of MEPs—the hon. Gentleman called it a team—who will inevitably be more remote than under the present system and will be asked to do far more work.
We all tend in the House to argue on the basis of our own examples, so I give Liberal Members an example that is dear to my heart. My Westminster constituency is part of the European constituency of Hertfordshire, which includes most of the county of Hertfordshire. The European constituency is to be abolished and merged into the giant Eastern region, which will cover many other counties in what is described as the east of England.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the various organisations and interests in a region. Business and education interests are organised on a county basis. The chambers of commerce and the local Confederation of British Industry branches are organised on a county basis and speak for the county and nowhere else. My hon. Friend the Member for North—East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) knows that to be the case.
The local education authority is the Hertfordshire county council. Most of the voluntary groups in my constituency are part of a Hertfordshire group. Everything


tends to be organised on a county basis. In the reorganisation of local government there was a vigorous debate about whether there should be a county council or a series of souped-up district councils with greater powers than previously. A strong argument was made on behalf of Hertfordshire. People identified with Hertfordshire and wanted to keep the county, and they did so.
Hertfordshire organisations speak for the people of Hertfordshire. This is just one example. In an earlier debate about regional identity, the Minister of State, Home Office said:
It struck me as bizarre to introduce sub-regional divisions that seemed to have no coherence, and no historical or current justification."—[Official Report, 23 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 255.]
I do not know whether she suggests that the Eastern region has more significance for people in Hertfordshire than the county of Hertfordshire. I have to say that the history of the peoples of the Eastern region of England is a volume that has yet to be written. If a person from abroad asked my constituents where they lived, they would say that they came from Hertfordshire. If they were asked where Hertfordshire was, they would say that it was in the south-east of England, or in the home counties around London. Not one in 100 would say that they lived in the Eastern region.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): If the regional boundaries are so bad, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in November 1993, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, came to this Dispatch Box with a great fanfare to declare the new regions not just for minor administrative purposes but as a major arm of government and representation of people at regional level?

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary is making a jump there which is not justified by fact. The regions were set up for administrative convenience to bring administration closer to people. They were not set up as electoral regions to represent electors or as an expression of any cultural or historical identity—specifically not. They were put there for administrative convenience. To their discredit, the Government have hijacked those regions and tried to turn them into something that they were never intended to be.
The right hon. Gentleman would be hard put to find any cultural or historical significance, fellow feeling or identity of purpose between all those people who live in the region described as the South East, stretching from Kent to Milton Keynes, or the Eastern region, stretching from Hertsmere to Norfolk.
I say nothing against the other counties in the Eastern region. My constituents like Norfolk. Many of them go on holiday there, but they do not think that they are part of the same region as Norfolk.
May I put it to the Home Secretary that the amendment is relevant not only to the ease of electors knowing what is happening and who represents them, but to the quality of representation that MEPs can provide? Westminster Members of Parliament are always emboldened in our dealings with the Government or whomever by the fact that we have a constituency link and speak on behalf of our constituents. I know of the affection and interest of the Home Secretary in all matters Belgian—[Laughter.]
He is very interested in Belgium. He plays the admirable party game "Ten Famous Belgians". I have received a letter from a former ambassador to Belgium and to Austria. He writes with some knowledge of the European scene. I refer to a Mr. O'Neill, who writes:
The party list system (or even multi-member constituencies) destroys the personal link between the member and the elector: the legislature becomes less responsive and more remote. The member no longer has any kind of authority or standing deriving from his personal mandate in his dealings with his Party, and he becomes entirely dependent on the Party for whether or at what point (sheep or goat) he appears on the Party list. The consequence is that the quality of candidates falls, and they come to be chosen almost exclusively from the ranks of career Party officials.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Unlike us.

5 pm

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself and his party.
I turn from the defects of the Government's proposed system and how they would be remedied by amendment No. 9, to the closed list system, with which amendment No. 51 deals. There are Liberal amendments on the same subject.
The closed list system is extremely difficult to defend. When the Government unveiled it, it attracted almost universal criticism and concern. The Times stated in a leading article:
This is bad for democracy and will be bad eventually for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections. Its closed list system allows voters no say over which candidate they want. They can merely vote for a party which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament.
On Second Reading, there was scarcely a friend to be found in the House for the closed list system. It will be interesting to see whether any hon. Member will defend it. It did not win many friends among the Home Secretary's colleagues in the European Parliament. One Labour MEP is quoted as saying:
The Prime Minister will not tolerate people who know about European issues, only authentic brain-washed Blairites.
That was the voice of Mr. Ken Coates.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: He is an authority.

Mr. Clappison: Perhaps Mr. Ken Coates was in a good position to judge, and he may now be in an even better position to do so.
Whether among serious commentators or members of the Labour European group, few are coming forward to defend the closed list system. It was therefore not surprising that—possibly as a result of his interest in all matters Belgian—the Home Secretary told us on Second Reading that he was launching an interesting consultation on the Belgian electoral system.
In fairness to the Home Secretary, he made it clear—rather like a judge passing sentence—that he was giving no promises about what the eventual sentence would be, but he led us to believe that it was an interesting development. He was as good as his word and put a paper in the Library on the operation of the Belgian electoral system. I have a copy of that paper.
I should be interested to know why the Home Secretary chose the Belgian system. He looks perplexed. I hope that he knows the answer—he chose it, not I.

Mr. Straw: indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: Good, the Home Secretary knows the answer. Perhaps he will tell us why he chose the Belgian list, rather than any of the other lists in the European electoral systems—the Danish system, for example, which he also mentioned in his speech. The open list systems are not strange in Europe. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us with pride:
I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration.
Since then, there has been a deafening silence from the Government for three months. We do not know what great debate has been taking place. We will be interested to learn what arguments the Government considered during the consultation and which argument clinched it for the closed list system, which was the Government's original preference. Did new facts come to light about the Belgian system that the Government did not know on Second Reading?
As a Belgian detective—Poirot, Simenon's Maigret, or Tin Tin—might say, it is all rather perplexing. Were those all red herrings that were thrown into the plot to mislead us, or have we yet to come to the final twist of the plot?

Mr. Straw: I shall deal in more detail with the Belgian system when I speak. Meanwhile, let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery about where the suggestion of the Belgian system came from. He has it in front of him. It was not my suggestion. As I said on Second Reading:
It has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for the party list as a whole or for an individual candidate from the party list".—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 813.]
I then spelt out how that would operate and went on to say that we were willing to consider it, without giving commitments about our final decision until there had been a chance to consult the House, which is what we are doing.

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary has missed his vocation. He has thrown another red herring into the plot. We did not hear the argument that clinched it for the Government, but no doubt we shall hear that in due course.
I am fully aware of what was said on Second Reading. The Home Secretary said that it had been suggested that they could introduce an electoral system
of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark"—
and, one could add, in many other European countries.
Why did the Government chose the Belgian system, rather than the Danish? Is it entirely coincidental that those of us for whom the differences between European electoral systems are not the natural stuff of our reading now discover that, in Belgium, there is a history of the preferential voting system not making much difference to

the order of candidates, whereas, in Denmark, which the Government did not choose as one of their examples, there is an established history of preferences being expressed by voters, and the voters' preferences making a difference to the final outcome of the election? We await an answer from the Home Secretary.
We have heard nothing yet from the Government, and the situation remains as unsatisfactory as it was on Second Reading. We believe that a closed list system is a bad system. One word that has been used to describe it is degrading. That is appropriate. It will not get our support in any circumstances.
The Home Secretary also told us on Second Reading that he was interested in the differences between various divisors and methods of election. I remind him of another point that he made. I refer to proportionality, which relates to some of the amendments tabled by the Liberals. The comments about Belgium and Denmark are not the only ones for which the Home Secretary owes the House an explanation.
The right hon. Gentleman told us on Second Reading why the Government had chosen the d'Hondt system in preference to the Sainte-Lague system. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for that pronunciation, of which I was previously unaware. The Home Secretary set out the reasons why he chose the d'Hondt system and said:
Sainte-Lague does not necessarily produce more proportional results. I have already introduced the proportionality index to the House—I noticed how hon. Members listened with bated breath. By calculating the index score for six regions using the 1994 European election vote in the United Kingdom, we found that, on average, d'Hondt scored higher than Sainte-Lague."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 812-14.]
Divisors are not my natural interest and I am not an expert in these matters. I have about the same level of interest in them as does the Home Secretary. However, this is an important matter and he explained why the Government had chosen that system. It has important consequences in terms of how many MEPs are elected from each region. Other people are more interested in this subject, and one of those is Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university.

Mr. Beith: A Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Clappison: He may well be. He is certainly an expert on electoral systems, and he knows his stuff on these matters. The Home Secretary's comments came to his attention and he suspected that something was wrong—in fact, it was a bit more than a suspicion. It was impossible for the Home Secretary to be right, because the Sainte-Lague system is never less proportional than the d'Hondt system and is frequently more proportional than it—contrary to what the Home Secretary told us on Second Reading. The good professor thought that there had been a mistake—I am glad that the Home Secretary admits it now—he carried out simulations and he found that he was correct. I am glad that the Home Secretary has realised his mistake.

Mr. Straw: rose

Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary intervenes again, I must advise him that it would have been a good idea for the Government to answer my written question on that subject.

Mr. Straw: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Clappison has the Floor.

Mr. Clappison: I shall certainly give way, but the Home Secretary might also like to respond to my next


point. I asked the Government last week whether they had made a mistake, and I received the answer earlier this week that they were still thinking about it. The Home Secretary has obviously thought about it, so perhaps he can give us an answer.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's implication is preposterous. He should know that, because I wrote to the shadow Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—just as I wrote to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and other party leaders—as soon as we were aware that an error had been made. I apologised for that error and I have placed in the Library the details of the revised calculations. Furthermore, the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), put on record in the Official Report of 20 January exactly what the situation was, and he repeated my unreserved apology to the House.

Mr. Clappison: I welcome that apology, and I accept the Home Secretary's explanation. However, he will understand that some issues flow from that mistake—not least what the Home Secretary said about comparisons between this country and Europe. He knows that, if we dismiss the argument in favour of the d'Hondt system that he gave us on Second Reading, there is little left to support the Government's chosen system. The Government say that they believe that the d'Hondt system is fair—that is a subjective opinion. They say that it is simple—I leave it to the Committee to judge whether any of these electoral systems are simple.
The Government also say that d'Hondt is commonly used in Europe, but it would appear that they have not used the system to calculate the relationship between seats and regions. According to those who are expert in such matters—I am not one of them—the Government have apparently used a different form of divisor for that calculation, which looks very much like the Sainte-Lague divisor that the Government dismissed for the purposes of electing MEPs. Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain that. What is the basis of the system that the Government have finally adopted for determining the relationship between seats and regions?
That decision has important consequences. The Home Secretary will know that the system that he has chosen for electing MEPs—the d'Hondt system—gives the Labour party an extra seat in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is looking quizzical: he would do well to take up the issue with those who are authorities in such matters. The different system that the Government have chosen to allocate seats between regions produces one fewer seat for the south-east and one more seat for London. That is an important consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary owes it to the Committee to confirm whether there is a difference between the divisors, what divisor relates seats to regions, and what the justification is for those decisions.
We hold no brief for any of those issues. We have some sympathy with the Home Secretary because we know that it is not his natural terrain.

Mr. Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is a legitimate argument about whether d'Hondt or Sainte-Lague is the

best and fairest mechanism of allocating seats according to votes. It has nothing to do with the allocation of seats to regions.

Mr. Clappison: The Government must explain why they have chosen different systems for those two functions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not heard my reply; I ask him to do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. The Government must explain why they have chosen different systems. The hon. Gentleman is a fair man and he must accept that, as the different systems apparently produce more favourable results for the Government in both cases, they owe the Committee an explanation.
It is no use the Government's claiming that the divisors are used commonly in Europe. As I understand it, the system that the Government have produced is unique in Europe: it is the only system that has a closed list at a regional level. Perhaps the Home Secretary will identify any other European country that has a closed list at a regional level. I am not aware of such a country within the European Union.
The Home Secretary is looking hopefully to his box: I suggest that he will find no other country with that system within the European Union. There may be another such country elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) provided the example of Bulgaria earlier. I am sure that the old Communist rulers of Bulgaria would recognise that system, but it is not recognisable to hon. Members.
We have some sympathy for the Home Secretary, and we recognise that a mistake was made about the electoral systems. We always accept an apology, and we are aware that this is not natural terrain for the Home Secretary. He does not compare too badly with certain other members of the Government—I am thinking specifically of the command of arithmetic demonstrated by the Minister for School Standards and the command of theology exhibited by the Minister for the millennium dome. I do not intend any disrespect to the dome. The Prime Minister has told me that I must visit the dome, and I am looking forward to that almost as much as I am looking forward to my guided tour of the Lord Chancellor's apartments.
There are serious matters for hon. Members to consider. We cannot approve of a system that is based on a mistake and on a closed list that we believe is undemocratic and which destroys the link between candidates and their constituencies. They are bad features of the system, and our amendments are designed to set them right.
We are also concerned about the important subject of party registration. We are alive to the concerns that have been expressed in this place about the registration of parties and party names. We know of the problems that were caused in the last election, and we treat the subject seriously. We regret that the Government have approached the registration issue in this way and introduced it into the Bill at this stage, after two important pieces of constitutional legislation have passed through Parliament and when this Bill is in Committee. It is rather late in the day for the Government to announce their ideas on registration. We believe that there should have been wider consultation at an earlier stage.
I know that the Home Secretary recently wrote to my right hon. Friends giving details of his plans. We would have preferred to receive those details much earlier—


certainly before the Bill reached its Committee stage and before the consideration of important constitutional legislation. A subject of such seriousness cannot be dealt with in this way, amid the shambles of the Government's plans for different electoral systems and against the background of this Bill, which destroys links between Members and their constituencies, and damages and degrades our electoral system. We are not happy about that, and we shall register our unhappiness in due course.
As I have said, we shall seek a separate vote on the question of party registration in order to signal our concern about the Government's plans. We shall also seek a separate vote on the constituency link, because we do not believe that the Government have offered sufficient arguments to support their proposals. We believe that our constituency link would slightly improve a bad and an inferior system.

Mr. David Drew: My speech may be a brief interlude in the melodrama being played out opposite. During the many hours that we have considered this legislation, we have heard about the Opposition's unwillingness to embrace electoral reform and their absolute hatred of regions. One wonders why that hatred is so strong. Some of us believe in regions, have regional accents and look to building up regions. As we look to the next millennium, one wonders whether there is a present or a future, as Conservative Members always seem to look backwards.

Mr. Syms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Drew: I shall take an intervention, but I must first make some progress.
I rise mainly to support new clause 4 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). We feel strongly that whether it is an open list or a closed list system, it is right and proper that an investigation is made at an appropriate time after the first elections are held. I am very much in favour of an open list system, but if a closed list is chosen, it is right and proper that an appraisal is made of how well it operated. The clause allows that to happen.

Mr. Damian Green: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of the open list system, will he join those in the Division Lobby who wish to vote for such a system for the election, when it happens, and not just conduct a post mortem on it afterwards, which he appears to want to do?

Mr. Drew: We do not know whether a Division will be called, and, if so, which way we shall vote. Many of us have worked long and hard for reform of the electoral system.
There are other reasons why it is important that there is an investigation after the first elections using the regional list system. We could look again at the allocation of seats. As always, we on the Government Benches are open to persuasion that it might be possible—[Laughter.) The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) laughs, but that is what those of us who have supported electoral reform over many years believe.
We are prepared to take on board the different opinions of others from outside the party, and, as I said on Second Reading, those who represent no party. It is important that we understand. We are not all electoral reform "works" on the Government Benches. We genuinely want to open up democracy. We want a different form of democracy—one that has been a long time in coming in this country, which we shall see in due course.

Mr. John Bercow: I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about openness and his readiness to embrace other opinions and to see them represented. Will he therefore explain whether in his judgment it would be acceptable if an open list system secured the return of Labour Members of the European Parliament who were fundamentally opposed to the European single currency?

Mr. Drew: Of course. That is one reason why I support an open list system. If the electorate choose to elect a person with a different policy from that of the leadership, that is a strong reason why it is a better system, and it is one for which I shall argue.
Another reason for a revision—this is not something about which I feel strongly—is the tabulation system, the use of divisors. It might be useful, after the first regional list system, to look again at divisors. It was put to me by a representative of a party that is not represented in the House that it is important that its point of view is heard. It feels strongly that national tabulation is preferable to regional tabulation. I have an open mind on that point. When we form the legislation, as we will, it is important that we have an opportunity to look again at whether particular parties or individuals have been discriminated against. That is a strong reason why the clause has been introduced.
I shall talk now about the benefits of an open list system—the main reason why I support the proposed change. There has been much argument about breaking the constituency link. There are those who strongly support the constituency link for the Westminster Parliament, but there is no constituency link for the European Parliament. It does not exist. There is no rapport between the Member and the constituency, because it is too large.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Drew: Yes, but I must make progress afterwards.

Miss McIntosh: I can identify on the Government Benches a number of colleagues who have served, as I have, in both Parliaments. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, now that it has been reduced to a mere 500,000, the existing constituency of a Member of the European Parliament is the same size as that represented by a congressman in the United States; that most of the work is done through channels similar to those of a congressman and a Member of Parliament; and that it works effectively?

Mr. Drew: I bow to the hon. Lady, who must be superwoman, because she represents a European Parliamentary constituency and is a Member of Parliament. She represents different parts of the country.
The very nature of the point that she made proves that it is possible to change the way in which we elect our MEPs. It is a different system with different jobs.
Opposition Members made the point on Tuesday about functional specialism, which is quite different for an MEP. That point was not lost on me. It is a strong argument for having a regional list system. MEPs do a totally different job, and therefore can be elected in totally different ways. That adds to the checks and balances, about which I spoke at great length on Second Reading. We feel strongly that the advantage of a regional list system must be put across.

Mr. Burden: Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Home Secretary will look closely at the advantages of an open list system, but would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that, contrary to the impression that we are getting from Opposition Members, in a recent survey undertaken by three academic institutions—the London school of economics, Birkbeck college and the university of Essex—more than two thirds of voters revealed that they would like a regional list system for elections to the European Parliament, whether a closed list or an open list?

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend. I am not aware of that study, but it is important that we listen to the electorate. When they are polled on the change, they seem to like the idea of being able to vote for a person or party or, indeed, an individual who does not represent a party. The open list system presents the best of both worlds: it gives an elector the chance to vote for a person—that person will usually represent a party—but if the elector just wants to elect a party, he or she can do so. That is the best thing about the system.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I counsel caution. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when polled, 70 per cent. of the Welsh electorate supposedly supported a Welsh assembly, yet, when the judgment came, only 25 per cent. voted for it and 75 per cent. did not? One has to be cautious about polls showing supposed attachments to prospective systems in which they have not been involved.

Mr. Drew: I accept the hon. Gentleman's observations. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, but we are starting from such a low participation base anyway. That is a strong argument for change. People do not vote in the European elections.

Mrs. Theresa May: rose

Mr. Drew: I cannot give way any more; I must make progress.
The open list system can and will allow people to participate differently.
On Second Reading, I spoke about people who, year in, year out, vote for a party that has never represented them. Under this system, they can be assured—if that party is one of the major parties—that, with good fortune they will be represented. That is not unimportant. That gives a whole new opening to the democratic structure of this country.
Such a system brings us into line with Europe, most of which now elects MEPs through a regional list system. There may be a difference between an open list system and a closed list system, but if we adopt the system that some Labour Members want, we shall be in the mainstream—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members obviously would not want to be in the mainstream, but that would tie us to the good will that exists, which is not to be frowned on.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the turnout at European elections in this country so far has been deplorably low and that it is important to consider mechanisms that will lead to a much higher turnout at future elections?

Mr. Drew: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that we try to improve our democracy. I look forward to increased participation.
This forms part of the constitutional changes which the Labour party was elected to deliver. It is not a whim; it concerns a stated policy in our manifesto and comes about through the joint consultative committee with the Liberal Democrats, to which we signed up. I admit that we are being asked to compromise; as I said on Second Reading, some of us would have considered STV, but that was not to be. It was more important that we found a system that introduced proportionality into the election of MEPs as the first and foremost principle. Whatever system it was, it had to be an improvement on the awful first-past-the-post system under which people do not participate in the European elections. There are many good reasons why the constitutional changes that are afoot will improve our democratic basis.
My noble Friend Lord Plant did much good work in terms of electoral reform when he chaired the Plant commission on behalf of the Labour party, which formed a large part of the work that we were able to take into the joint consultative committee with the Liberal Democrats. The Plant commission identified a check list of the measures that would result in a good electoral system. The first on the list was representation. We hope that MEPs will be a different sort of elected representative and will pursue a different role from that pursued in the past because they will play a regional role. That is to be welcomed. This issue is about checks and balances; it is about a system whereby people can be elected in different ways and pursue different roles.
The second item on the list was the nature of the elected bodies. No one can pretend that the European Parliament is not fundamentally different from this place and from the representation that we shall have at a regional level. The system used to elect those people can strengthen rather than weaken those bodies. The third item on the list is legitimacy. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We want to increase voter participation and we strongly believe that an open list system will result in a higher turnout because people will see the benefit of electing their representatives in that way.
The fourth point was stability. The system is robust, and whether we come up with an open or a closed list—I argue strongly in favour of an open list—whether by the d'Hondt or the Sainte-Lague method, there will be stability because the system's transparency will increase the electorate's interest and involvement.
The fifth item on the list is the key principle of proportionality—making votes count. Those of us who have always supported electoral reform feel strongly about that. Under the first-past-the-post system, people build up huge majorities, which may do wonders for their egos, but for those who vote time after time for a party that has no chance of getting to power, the system is disillusioning. Under this system, there is a proper relationship between the votes cast and the seats delegated. If we can achieve that in the European elections as well as in the Welsh and Scottish elections, we shall have proved that we can improve this country democratically.
We should like to think that the list system would reflect society, and result in the election of more women and people from ethnic minorities. People who would not normally be elected would have a chance to be elected. I support the open list system and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on staying open-minded, despite Opposition Members' taunts that he must come up with this or that system. He has had an opportunity to hear the debate and has allowed hon. Members, including Labour Members, with different opinions to state their case. We think that this is a better system which will lead to a much more representative set of people in the European Parliament.

Mr. Beith: I warmly commend the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I hope that it has made a strong impression on the Home Secretary, as he made his point very clearly.
The breadth of the debate under this group of amendments is illustrated by the fact that it started a couple of days ago with a thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who gave a perceptive analysis of the single transferable vote system and put to bed some of the misconceptions harboured among Conservative Members. His preference for Westminster is the first-past-the-post system, but today we are discussing how we elect MEPs and I share his view that the best system for doing that is the one used and endorsed in Northern Ireland—STV.
As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, we have all had to reach compromises in trying to find a system that will command sufficiently wide support in the House, secure proportionality and ensure that the electorate play a significant role in determining who is elected. The amendment turns on the latter point.
Amendment No. 4, on the merits of the divisor system, will be dealt with later by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), in a characteristically short and well-informed speech, if he manages to catch your eye, Sir Alan. I hope that you will agree that we can, as I have requested informally, have a separate vote on amendment No. 4 on the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems, unless the Home Secretary says that he has at last realised, following the understandable miscalculations that were made earlier along the line, that this is the better system.
Amendment No. 79 simply flags up a point about which the Home Secretary may need to think—whether we should have signatures as well as a deposit. We have seen what happened at some by-elections with the Buy

the Daily Sport party. For example, if there is a free-post delivery, the electoral system and public funds may be commercially abused by people using the ballot paper to promote a product. Having a significant number of signatures would be a way of dealing with that danger. There is provision for six, 10 or 12 signatures, but a significant number—several hundred signatures—would be a barrier against that abuse.
I do not particularly favour amendment No. 9, but it has a genuine purpose, which is, in a slightly artificial way, to attach a constituency to someone elected under this system. I disagree with its description, an "open regional list system", which is misleading, but I understand what it is getting at. That problem would be resolved informally by candidates in a constituency. It would be in a party's interest to ensure that the candidates whom it put forward came from various parts of the constituency. It would be in the candidates' interest to ensure that they had a strong basis of support in that constituency. If there were several Members of the same party, they would want to agree on some specialisation when attending events and maintaining contacts. It would also be in their interest, whether as the only Member of that party or one of several, to ensure that there were sufficient contact points throughout the large constituency that they represented.
The key issue is the question of open and closed lists, which can make a big difference to the quality of the system. We welcome the Home Secretary's offer on Second Reading to reconsider the issue. He has taken a long time over that, but I shall not complain if he comes to the right decision. Allowing voters to express a preference for particular candidates is an essential part of the Bill, and ensuring that voters continue to be involved in the choice of individual candidates helps to validate the system.
Few people like the idea of a closed list of party candidates, but the current system, against which we are judging the proposed system, is a closed list of one. People who do not like a party's candidate have to vote for another party, which most electors do not want to do. That usually happens only extreme circumstances such as those that led to the election of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Under the current system, people must accept the party's choice or vote for a different philosophy or set of beliefs, which most electors do not want to do.
Electors could at least be presented with a slate of party candidates, one or more of whom they might like, but our view is that they should be able to influence which of a party's candidates is elected. That is the purpose of our amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and new schedule 1. Voters would be able to choose whether to use their vote as a simple party vote, as many people would. Hon. Members are deceiving themselves if they think that most voters vote for individuals, because the evidence is that they vote for a party.

Mr. Allan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the detailed work of Dr. Patrick Seyd of Sheffield university's department of politics clearly shows that the vast majority of voters vote for a party and that the personal vote is tiny in all normal electoral circumstances?

Mr. Beith: All the evidence points in that direction. I take the romantic view that we should encourage people


to vote for individuals. It is an incentive for Members of this Parliament or of the European Parliament to know that electors see them as individuals. I am strongly in favour enabling people to vote for individuals, but hon. Members must recognise that most electors have a different preference. They want to vote for the party philosophy in which they believe or in line with their party allegiance. The system that we propose would ensure that they have the further option of influencing which candidate is elected.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If people vote for a party, not a candidate, why does the right hon. Gentleman's party perniciously focus on personal issues, rather than policies, at elections?

Mr. Beith: Hon. Members of all parties sometimes focus on the personalities of candidates. I have heard extraordinary exchanges at the Dispatch Box in which the personalities of individuals within the parties have been criticised. Reasonable argument about a candidate's views is relevant to an election. It is proper for people to decide whether they want the Euro-sceptic or the pro-European element in the Conservative party to predominate, but they do not have that opportunity. The decision is made through the Conservative party's selection procedures, not by the electorate. Many Conservative voters would prefer to vote for a pro-European rather than for an anti-European candidate, but would not vote for another party. The merit of the system proposed in our amendment is that voters would become involved in that process.

Mr. Burden: The poll to which I referred was of course dismissed by Conservative Members, but it was undertaken by ICM, the pollsters often used by the Conservative party.

Mr. Syms: Sack them.

Mr. Burden: Yes, ICM got it wrong.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that poll showed that, when a large number of voters were presented with the type of ballot paper used in the Belgian list system, three fifths crossed just the party box and two fifths voted for individuals? That bears out his point that, although the majority go with the party line, a significant minority want a choice.

Mr. Beith: Exactly. More people would want to influence the choice of individuals if a party nominated a candidate who was extremely unpopular with some voters or did not represent their views and aspirations. We all know of circumstances in which that has happened, or would have happened if people had had the opportunity to exercise a choice.
The public should be able to influence the range of candidates who are elected to the European Parliament. Under the electoral system in Norway, the ability to influence which candidates are elected by crossing out a candidate from a list has significantly increased the number of women in Norwegian politics. Indeed, it has transformed Norway's political system. We sorely need that in our system. Despite legal complications, parties are at the moment trying to include enough women on the

voting papers to ensure that more are elected, but why should the voters not be involved in that process? Voters may disagree, but they should be involved in such decisions. The system that we propose would enable them to be so.
The limited voter choice system which would result if the Bill were amended as we suggest would still require voters to mark only one cross on the ballot paper, which is no more complicated than the system proposed in the Bill. People could vote for a party, a candidate on the list or an independent candidate. By using their vote to strengthen a candidate's chances, people would have a role in the choice of candidates, but the parties would still be able to put their preferred order of candidates before the voters.
Some people—I know that it is true in the Labour party—think that electors should not be left in total ignorance of who the party thinks are its strongest candidates. I understand that point of view, which is not entirely met by the STV system. One of the reasons we like it is the slightly anarchistic tinge to our thinking, but I understand the view of those who want the parties' preferences on the ballot paper. The system that we propose would allow that. It would make a difference only if there were significant swings of public opinion or a large element of the public was dissatisfied with a party's order of preference.
We are discussing the first national election in this country to be held under a proportional system. It is vital to use a system that can carry the confidence of the electorate. There is a genuine danger that a closed list system would not have their confidence and would not produce a better turnout than that at the 1994 European Parliament election, when about only a third of the electorate voted. Voting under the closed list system proposed in the Bill would be by party, but, as the mock ballot paper produced by the Home Secretary shows, all the candidates' names would have to be listed.
Our proposed change would not make the ballot paper more confusing, and our mock ballot paper in new schedule 1 provides a clear layout. The Home Secretary has suggested that our ballot paper would be improved if professional designers refined it by making it simpler. The Home Office's first proposal for the new police caution to be used during an arrest was extraordinarily complicated. I suggested employing two subeditors from The Sun to tighten up the wording. Experienced professionals could probably improve our suggested ballot paper.

Mr. Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case which we have heard from both sides of the Chamber. The problems with the turnout at European Parliament elections are not to do with the electoral system. There are much higher turnouts for Westminster elections on exactly the same system. People do not vote in European Parliament elections because, sadly, they find the European Parliament and their representatives distant. Will not huge electoral regions make them seem more distant?

Mr. Beith: I think that there is a combination of factors; but, if the hon. Gentleman consults the figures relating to the existing Westminster system, he will find


that the turnout tends to be lower in areas where the outcome is entirely predictable. For instance, Conservatives in County Durham, feeling that their votes will make no difference to the outcome, are less inclined to vote. The system is one of the factors influencing the position. It is clear that all the publicity surrounding national elections and the possibility of a change of Government induces a higher turnout, but we need to look for ways in which we can secure a better turnout in European elections, and I think that this is one of those ways.

Mr. Martin Linton: The question of whether a list is closed or open does not appear to affect the turnout. In European elections, countries such as Germany and France, which have closed lists, achieve a far higher turnout than this country. The essential difference is that those countries have proportional systems in which every vote counts. To say that we have higher turnouts in Westminster elections is to miss the point. If we compare general elections with general elections, we see that this country has by far the lowest turnout, as it has in European elections. Both low turnouts are caused by the voting system.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes my point far more eloquently than I did. The key factor is whether the elector feels that his or her vote counts and makes a difference. Proportionality—which is what the Bill is essentially about—gives the elector the message that the vote will count, but to blur that message by saying, "You will be able to vote only for a party, not for an individual," would undermine the value of the change. Let me make it clear that it would not undermine it to the extent that I would prefer the present system to continue—a closed list of one with no proportionality.
A number of hon. Members have cited evidence from surveys showing support for open lists, and also showing that the system is easy to operate. This month, Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London school of economics published a survey of more than 1,000 people on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree reform trust. It demonstrated that 80 per cent. of respondents required no additional explanation of ballot papers, but understood immediately how the system should operate—and that the majority preferred the open list system.

Mr. Tim Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman might add that the social group most strongly opposed to that system were the AB s. That may suggest that the managerial and professional classes, who have a better chance of understanding the system, rejected it.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is the other way around. The AB classes most favoured the open list system, and were keenest to choose between individuals. That reflects a social reality. In much of the country, those categorised by other letters in the social class system—which is a rather uncomfortable part of our history and culture—have tended to vote for the parties that represent their interests rather than for individuals. I should like to change that; I would like more people to be concerned about individuals. As I said earlier, most people are

concerned with their party preference—but the fact that people who are familiar with making choices of all kinds wanted to make choices about individuals when voting is quite significant.
There is no evidence that the complexity of our proposals, as opposed to the Bill as it stands, makes them indigestible. They are perfectly manageable. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made clear, people in Northern Ireland are well used to the STV system, which is slightly more complex from the voter's point of view. They seem to experience no difficulty in using that system—and, moreover, in using it to maximum effect, to ensure that their votes have the maximum value. At a time when the Inland Revenue is telling people that they can fill in self-assessment forms and that they will be fined £100 if they do not get it right, it comes ill for anyone to suggest for a moment that people are incapable of dealing with a ballot paper of this kind to make their votes as effective as possible.
We urge the Home Secretary to amend the Bill to provide for open lists. After we told the Home Office about its error in calculation, it pointed out a technical defect in amendment No. 5. It was almost tit for tat. We are happy for the Government to include the provision in whatever form they choose, as long as it meets our criteria. The normal procedure would be to do that on Report. Between now and Report, the Home Secretary must reach a decision—a decision on which he has received unanimous advice, from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Opposition Front Benchers have made it clear that they do not like proportional representation or lists, but that, if there are to be lists, they should be open rather than closed. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made it clear that he wanted the individual to be involved, which is achieved through STV and would be better achieved by open than by closed lists, and other Opposition Members have said the same.
The message to the Home Secretary is clear, and it is now for him to act on it.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I have supported proportional representation since the mid-1970s. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have also supported the conspiracy theory of history. I know that my right hon. Friend tends to support the cock-up theory. However, I subscribe to the growing consensus in the House of Commons that, in his passion to retain the first-past-the-post system, my right hon. Friend came up with the most appalling system of PR in order to maximise public opposition to it.
I, too, favour an open list, and—as a Labour Member—I have an additional reason for doing so. We know that, if the proposed system comes to pass, the Conservatives and Liberals will arrange for some form of membership participation—perhaps "one member, one vote"—in the ranking of candidates. We know that, following a meeting of the national executive committee, Labour is consulting members throughout the party on a proposal for us not to allow our members to determine the ranking of candidates. That, I think, makes a much more powerful case for an open list.
I understand that we have a problem. Given that we won so many European seats last time, given the need to ensure balanced representation of women in the European Parliament in the regions and given the determination to


get rid of any MEP who signed the clause IV statement a few years ago, there will be a lot of shuffling around, and we cannot trust party members to come up with exactly the list that we would like.
That is unlikely to happen, as the NEC favoured the proposal by 10 votes to two, with three abstentions. Every Minister was absent, whether because of the pressure of work or because of a general distaste for what was being asked of them. I think that it would be completely unacceptable for a party that is considering saying to its members, "You may make nominations, but you must trust the leadership to sort out the ranking order" then to deny the electorate any influence. I do not know about Belgian or Dutch systems, but this is beginning to sound very much like the old Albanian system, in which public influence was minimised.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has been open-minded. I genuinely believe that the issue has not yet been determined, and I am not so outraged at this point that I will vote against my party tonight; but, unless the proposals are changed to give the electorate the right to vary the order of election, I shall find it almost impossible to support my party on Third Reading.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called. I also thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for describing me as superwoman, and hope that I can live up to that badge in the fulness of time.
I have a number of problems with the proposals. I hope that the Home Secretary will comment on amendment No. 9. Perhaps, like many women, he can do two things at once. The amendment does not satisfy the provision in the treaty of Rome—which remains unamended by subsequent treaties—for us eventually to be bound by a uniform electoral system.
The problem with the system that has been chosen is that it is not in keeping with systems currently in operation in other member states. Therefore, we may have to change it again to meet our obligations under the treaty of Rome. Would it not be better to be more patient and to look at the broader picture? If the Government decide at some time in the future to introduce proportional representation in the House—if we are not to have PR for this House, so much the better—will they choose this system or will they choose a system more in keeping—

6 pm

Mr. Beith: The trouble I have with the hon. Lady's argument that we should be patient in case the system does not meet the uniformity requirement is that it was advanced by the Conservative party when it opposed a proportional system when the direct elections were first introduced 20 years ago. I foresee the British electorate being permanently denied an opportunity to achieve a fair outcome to the election on that basis.

Miss McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman is strengthening my argument. My argument for the Committee is that, if it was the wish of the House to have a system of proportional representation, the time to have adopted that would have been 1977. However, the House voted by an overwhelming majority to continue to operate elections to the European Parliament on a first-past-the-post system and I see no reason to change that.
Liberal Democrats and Labour Members have talked about how to increase the number of women on the eventual list. Female Conservative Members are confident that we are mainstream candidates and that we were elected on merit and not because of our gender or anything else. Perhaps that is a challenge that we can throw open to the Labour party and other parties.
Democracy is all about increasing voter choice. The present system for elections to the European Parliament is heavily constituency based, identifies a clear voter choice and allows candidates to be elected to represent a particular area. It would be a severe blow to democracy if voter choice and the democratic link were lost, as would happen under the system proposed by the Government.
Closed lists are deeply undemocratic because voters will be presented not with a choice of candidate but with a party label. There will be no named candidate except for independents. It seems curious that independent candidates will be named when mainstream candidates will not. It gives them an advantage over candidates from the three main parties, and perhaps the Green party, who knows? I wonder whether that was the Government's intention.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: I should like to make some progress.
On closed lists, we find ourselves in strange company. Closed lists are common to Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Uruguay—perhaps not first-rank European democracies. Perhaps the Government will say why we have aligned ourselves to such a closed list system.
Having been elected, on merit I believe, to the European Parliament, I am concerned that the voters' choice would be removed from the choice of candidate and that the party list would not provide a possibility for changing the preference or priority of candidates on the list. There are two problems with the closed list system, which I believe amendment No. 9 goes some way towards rectifying. The first problem is the election itself, which I have already explained. The second problem, which has been mentioned by a number of distinguished colleagues, particularly Conservative Members, is what happens after the election. Who takes up the casework under a closed list system? Who will answer the mail, who will take the surgeries and who will take up cases? Removing the constituency link creates a break that is regrettable.
Seven Members have been allocated under the list in the region of Yorkshire and the Humber. How will those seven Members on, for example, a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat list campaign for voter recognition when their names will not be on the ballot paper that will be outside the election halls on the day?
I find some comfort in amendment No. 9 and I will certainly vote for it. It allows for an open regional list system. It allows for an open list and revives the constituency link. There are advantages in that from which I hope the Government will take comfort. It provides a recognisable link between a candidate and, subsequently, the elected Member. Amendment No. 9 would allow a candidate to be nominated for a particular constituency. That means that in that constituency an elector could vote for an individual candidate and, having


identified a candidate with whom they wish to be associated, could change the priority of candidates on the list.

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: I should like to conclude my argument because I have a short memory span.
The proposed system would remove the democratic link which would be revived by amendment No. 9. In mother and child terms, with which Labour Members can respond, it would revive the umbilical cord between the elected Member and the candidate and the constituency. I believe that all hon. Members accept that that goes to the heart of democracy.
The Government's proposal would destroy the electors' choice and remove the power to state a preference for a particular candidate. As I have said, it is not in keeping with the treaty of Rome provision that we should submit a uniform electoral procedure. Also, it is not in keeping with the proportional representation already operating in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
I have asked the Government—I hope that they will reply today—whether the proposed system of proportional representation would be that chosen in the event that it was decided in future to change the system for general elections.
The greatest difficulty I have with the Government's proposal is that it confuses the electors and will make them less likely to vote. Those of us who wish to promote democracy would like more people to vote at every election, including European elections. As I have said, it is not in step with the procedures of the majority of member states and, therefore, would require an amendment in the future.
At the risk of being provocative—I should like to think that I am not known for that, at least not yet—I must say that the greatest danger posed by the system presented is that it smacks of federalism. The one thing that distinguished the Conservative party from the other two main parties at the general election was that we wanted to elect candidates and elected Members to the lowest common denominator. It was said earlier that Conservative Members do not like the regions. I must remind the Committee that it was a Conservative Government who created Government regions for administering policy. We believe that there is a place for the regions. I would prefer that parish councils be given more powers but that we keep borough, district and county councils. The endless drift towards regionalism in the United Kingdom is removing the elector from the elected person. I was delighted that, in presenting to the House the White Paper on regional development agencies, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government would postpone direct elections to those agencies, which they had promised.
Conservative Members are against federalism. I oppose the electoral system proposed by the Government. I hope that, by supporting and passing amendment No. 9, we can put the Government's proposals to bed.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: No; I should like to conclude.
A closed list system would not only promote federalism but allow the creation of a socialist super-state, and it would give the party hierarchies complete control over which candidates appear on a list.

Mr. Straw: I hope that, in the light of that final comment by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will reconsider his comments on our system and realise, with the passion of a convert, that there is much in it to commend itself to him.
I should like to deal with one calumny uttered by my hon. Friend. He suggested that the system proposed in the Bill was introduced by me—whose views on the electoral system for Westminster are well known—as part of a scheme to discredit proportional representation. That is not the case. Moreover, I should like him to know that the Labour party approved that change in forums in which I had absolutely no involvement. The change was recommended by a Labour party committee chaired by my noble Friend, Lord Plant; it was approved by the 1993 Labour party conference; and, subsequently, it was approved by party conferences throughout the previous Parliament. Although I was at those conferences, I did not have a vote on the change, and neither did I participate in any of the debates on it.
The hon. Member for Vale of York made an interesting speech. I am very grateful to her for saying, right at the end, that the Conservative party created regions. That is a very important statement. We have been accused—quite falsely—by the Opposition of inventing regional boundaries and the regions listed in schedule 1 to the Bill. That is not so. Those regions follow the regional boundaries established by the previous Conservative Government.
When those boundaries were first announced to the House, on 4 November 1993, by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), he did not say—in the prosaic terms suggested by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—that they were simply for "administrative convenience". The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal elevated the case for regional offices to a very much higher level. He said:
He"—
that is me—
will see that we are devolving responsibility from Whitehall"—
by implementing those changes and establishing those regions. He continued:
We are cutting back red tape and bureaucracy. We are making it easier for local people, business men, local authorities and training and enterprise councils to talk to Government … I want the civic and business leaders to get together with their public and private-sector partners to define their vision and to set up what practical steps can be taken to build on the strengths of their areas and on the things that they believe most command their areas."— [Official Report, 4 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 518.]
The areas that he was talking about were those regions.

Mr. Clappison: Like the Home Secretary, I enjoy the prose of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I have spent some time listening to it—[Interruption.] It is very good prose. Surely the important point—which the Home Secretary is missing completely—is the purpose for which the


administrative regions were established. In the statement that the Home Secretary of State is quoting, did my right hon. Friend say that he wanted regions to be used for electoral purposes?

Mr. Straw: No, he did not. However, in the passages that I have quoted, he was arguing—this is the point—that they were coherent regions in which people could come together and represent all the interests of those regions. That was the precise point that he was making, and that was the case in favour of those regions.
This group of amendments takes us to the heart of the Bill. If nothing else, the amendments demonstrate that there is no real unanimity on which system should be adopted. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wants a system that is similar to that used in Belgium. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would like us to adopt the single transferable vote; whereas the official Opposition, in amendment No. 9—which I shall, for the elucidation of the Committee, deal with in more detail later in my speech—have produced a system that does not have a name, but which is of such stunning complexity that I can only assume that their intention is entirely to baffle the electorate.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere and the official Opposition have also tabled amendment No. 51, which seems to be an endorsement of the Liberal Democrats' position on Belgium. It is therefore clear that they have succeeded in baffling themselves in addition to everyone else.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is there not a real difference between devolving power to regional agencies, as the previous Government did, and taking power from, for example, the rural development commissions, which have their roots in the countryside, and giving it to the Government's regional development agencies, which have their roots in the towns?

Mr. Straw: Mr. Cook, who is our Chairman at the moment, would very quickly rule me out of order if I were enticed down the path suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, I do not accept for a moment what the hon. Gentleman said. Conservative Members really should look in the minor before speaking about support for the countryside. I remember that, in 1977, my noble Friend Lord Shore—who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, while I was working as his special adviser—published, against Conservative opposition, a policy document to control the siting of hypermarkets outside town and city centres. In the early 1980s, that policy document was torn up by the Conservatives—by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). More than anything else, that is what has destroyed the countryside and led to the flight from the towns.

Miss McIntosh: The Secretary of State may have been distracted when I asked whether he would answer the point on treaty obligations. As hon. Members will know, the treaty of Rome obliges us to sign up to a uniform electoral system. The majority of member states have

signed up to an open list. Would it not be better for the United Kingdom to adopt an open list, if that is the wish of the majority of the House?

Mr. Straw: I had planned on dealing with that point later in my speech. However, I believe that the hon. Lady is misinformed on two matters—first, on the degree to which the treaties to which she referred create an imperative on us to accept a single, uniform system. The treaties talk about common principles and allow considerable variation.
Secondly—as I was coming on to deal with the Belgian system—it is not the case that a majority of other European countries use so-called open systems. On page 33 of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill research paper, which is in the Library, the hon. Member for Vale of York will see that it is recited in the second paragraph that
Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal have party lists where the order cannot be changed by the voter.
In other words: they have closed lists. If she reads the schedule to that appendix, she will see that the details of the systems within each of the member states vary considerably and, in some cases, by a wider margin than our proposed system will vary from the commonality of mainland European systems.

Mr. William Cash.: The Home Secretary may recall that, on Second Reading, he and I had an altercation over the wording of the Amsterdam treaty. I made the very point that he has just made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I said that the existing treaties provided for a uniform procedure, but that the Amsterdam treaty contained the additional words:
or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
From that I argued, as I have no doubt that Lord Shore would have argued, that that would be a perfectly good reason for adopting the first-past-the-post principle, because the common principle to which we are referring, as distinct from the uniform electoral procedure, would be a proper system of democracy, and we regard the first-past-the-post system as a proper system of democracy and as a common principle.
I now come to the matter on which I should like the Home Secretary to comment. When I made that point, which is the point that he has just made in reply to my hon. Friend, he said:
I do not accept that for a moment."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 807.]
The Home Secretary has just contradicted himself. Will he explain that?

Mr. Straw: I am always happy to confess errors that I have made, as I have done in respect of the proportionality of the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague calculations. What I said on 25 November was exactly what I have said now. I said that I did not accept the hon. Gentleman's point and went on:
The arrangements that we are putting in place … are extremely similar, and in some cases identical, to those that are in place in the majority of other European countries."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 807.]
That is exactly the same point; I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say.


I deal now with the so-called Belgian system. I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of the Committee, if not to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, how it was that on 25 November I told the House that, although we had proposed the closed list system in the Bill, I was willing to consider representations in favour of the so-called Belgian system. I had not decided to recommend it; it arose because of representations made to us—separately, as it happened—by the Liberal Democrats and by Charter 88, the constitutional group.
I appreciate that Conservatives find it difficult to cope with our style of government, which is not to go into a huddle, make decisions about the detail of the Bill and then refuse to listen to any representations, however strong they are. That is not our approach. Yes, of course, we are bound to reach reasonably settled conclusions before we come to the House with propositions—that is the duty of the Government—but it is also our duty to listen to representations. I have not yet made up my mind; nor have my colleagues—there is a particular reason for that—and I will not do so until next week. I happen to believe that it is important that we take into account the views of the House and weigh up the balance of argument.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. Of course, the initial requests were made by the Liberal Democrats and Charter 88, but is he aware that there is substantial support among those on the Government Benches for the adoption of an open list? Many of us who favour electoral reform for the European parliamentary elections and believe that there are significant advantages in greater proportionality nevertheless feel that the reform will have greater legitimacy if it is done according to the Belgian model rather than a closed list system.

Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend says and will take note of it. As I said, we have not made up our minds, but will do so in due course.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what were the advantages of the closed list system. I spelt them out in the debate on 25 November, but I shall summarise them now. First, the system is self-evidently the simplest one. Secondly, we need to take account of the fact that, within the European constituencies, even the existing ones, voters are much less likely to know the candidates by reputation—this is a self-evident truth—than within the smaller, more compact and more personal Westminster constituencies. Therefore, the argument that voters can size up the candidates as well as the party—an argument which favours first past the post and the single-member constituency system—is less strong. Another point that needs to be borne in mind is that an open list system could discriminate between women and members of the ethnic minorities.
The Conservatives should find two other aspects of the closed list system particularly appealing. The first is that the Conservatives chose the closed list system for the elections to the Northern Ireland peace forum in 1996, a point made eloquently by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If this plan was without any merit whatsoever, one would assume that the previous

Government would not have touched it, but there was a serious debate about it. It was not as though they suddenly came across it by chance—they went through all the alternatives and decided to use that system. The hon. Member for Hertsmere may shake his head, but he is as ill-informed about this aspect of the Conservatives' history as he is about so much else. The Conservatives decided in favour of the closed list system and, by the by, they also decided on the d'Hondt rather than the Sainte-Lague system.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere said that one of the major objections to a closed list was that it would encourage parties to pack the lists with party careerists. It was at that moment that I noticed that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wince, as did a number of his colleagues. If we consider the albeit relatively short list of new Conservative Members elected in 1997, it is noticeable that their single most common occupation was party apparatchik. That list includes the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and, above all, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The crowning achievement of his career before he entered the House was that he was special adviser to Jonathan Aitken. Whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system might be, it does prevent parties from packing the Benches with party apparatchiks if they so choose.

Mr. Clappison: I think the Home Secretary was struggling with that line of argument. I do not know what his background is, but, if I were he, I would tread carefully. For the record, the views that I was putting to the House and the quotation that I used were from the former ambassador to Belgium. They were not mine, but I am happy to endorse them.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman rather spoilt his comments by that final point. There is no question about my background—people know what it was. It was the hon. Gentleman's point, not mine. [Interruption.] My presence also proves the point. The hon. Gentleman was saying that only a closed regional list would attract apparatchiks, but that is utter nonsense.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not want to interfere in the contest that my right hon. Friend has just won game, set and match—said he, hoping to get on the party list. My right hon. Friend's mental processes are much faster than mine—said he, with the same motive—but I question whether an open system would discriminate against women and ethnic minorities. In an open system such as the Belgian one, the electorate could make substantial changes to the list's order of candidates and also use their power to vote against women candidates. He is surely wrong.

Mr. Straw: I can best explain by reference to ethnic minority candidates. My experience of three-member wards in local elections in my constituency and elsewhere, shows that, if one party puts up two white candidates and one Asian with an obviously Asian name, even if the Asian is higher up the ballot paper in alphabetical order—in a position that would usually benefit the candidate—


the two with English names are almost always elected and the one with an Asian name is not. I am not saying that that is conclusive, but it needs to be weighed in the ballot. The same may apply to women, although I refute my hon. Friend's point on that less strongly.
Under the Belgian system, electors would be free to vote for a party list, for an individual candidate from the party list or, of course, for a candidate standing as an independent. As drafted, the Bill provides for votes to be cast either for a party list or for an independent candidate, and does not provide for votes for individual candidates on party lists. The amendments would also provide for the allocation of seats to each party, the system of allocation of those seats between the party's candidates on the list, and the form of ballot paper to be used.
On Second Reading, I said that I believed in the simplicity and other attributes of the closed-list system. I also pointed out—I reinforce my reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York—that the countries that use the closed list system comprise two thirds of voters in Europe; the system is, in terms of voters, the most commonly used. However, I also said that I was prepared to consider the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system. This debate, and much else, provides the opportunity for doing so.
One of the reasons why I do not want to make a decision until next week or the week after is that I have commissioned a small study to find out electors' views on the two systems, the results of which will be available at the end of this week. I shall make a decision in the light of that evidence and all the views that have been expressed.
The Committee will want to take into account the findings of research that was carried out by the democratic audit, which some hon. Members have been sent by Charter 88 and which my officials have discussed with its authors. Pages 14 to 17 of Library research paper 98/29 contains a useful summary of the results of that research, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred.

Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that research publicly available?

Mr. Straw: Yes, of course; I was just about to say that I would.

Miss McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a complete anomaly that, on a closed list, independent candidates can be named on the ballot paper whereas party candidates cannot?

Mr. Straw: It would be an anomaly if that were the case, but it is not. The draft ballot papers, which we deposited in the Library, make it clear that individual candidates and the order of ranking will be on the ballot paper as part of the closed list. If we choose the closed list system, it is essential that people should, in making their judgment, see not only the party's name but the candidate's name.

Mr. Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman did not, I think, say that he would refer to the McDougall Trust research published by the Electoral Reform Society. The trust ran a number of focus groups—I know that he is aware of their value—and concluded that

although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves.

Mr. Straw: I am also aware of that research; all those matters will need to be taken into account.
It has been announced provisionally that the Bill's Report stage will take place not this Thursday, but Thursday week. If that remains the schedule of business, I intend on Tuesday morning to inform hon. Members, and the official spokesmen of all the main parties, of the Government's decision whether to choose the closed list or Belgian system, so that hon. Members have time, if they want, to table amendments.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I ask the Home Secretary a favour? He has until Monday or Tuesday week in which to make a judgment. As he knows, if he does not let us know until Tuesday morning, we shall have to work hard to table amendments that would be unstarred by Thursday. As a courtesy, will he let the official spokesmen know his decision on Monday rather than Tuesday?

Mr. Straw: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman says, yes.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke elegantly and thoughtfully about the single transferable vote. As he rightly pointed out, STV was introduced by the then Conservative Government and endorsed by the Labour Opposition—we cannot disclaim parentage. STV is appropriate for Northern Ireland; because it works well there, we shall not change it. However, we do not think that it is appropriate for Great Britain; we think that the most appropriate system for Great Britain is the one proposed in the Bill, regardless of whether it is modified.
We have always taken the view that electoral systems should be appropriate to the nature and functions of the body that is being elected, and to the circumstances of the election.
Northern Ireland is a single region, and its 1.2 million electors return three MEPs. By contrast, the south-east region of England contains some 6 million electors, who will return 11 MEPs. If, in one of England's larger regions—this is not too fanciful to imagine—four parties put up a complete list of candidates and several independents stand, there could be up to 50 candidates. Under the STV system, the electors would be faced with the prospect of having to rank those 50 candidates.
We must also imagine the counting of the votes. STV is a complex system to count, as candidates drop out, surpluses are transferred and votes are given fractional values. In the larger regions of England—the right hon. Gentleman may say that we should not impose such large regions, but we judge that we should—the process could take up to a week, with all the costs and disruption that would ensue. The regional list system is common in Europe, and we believe that we should choose it in Great Britain, where circumstances are different from those in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's reason for rejecting STV is valid or that the example that he chose is appropriate. We have experience, admittedly only in one election, of STV applying to


constituencies as large as 10-seaters—under the Government's regional proposals, the largest constituency would be an 11-seater. It is not inevitable that there will be as many candidates as he thinks. An intervention does not give me enough time, but I could explain why the number of candidates would be much smaller than he suggests. In that 1982 election, there was no significant difficulty in running the count in a 10-seat constituency. Counts take a couple of days, but rarely longer. The right hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand up.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that. It is my judgment that, during the first election under the STV system in a 10 or 11-vacancy region in Britain, each of the parties would put up nine, 10 or 11 candidates. I understand his point, but I do not agree.
Amendment No. 9, which was tabled by the official Opposition, is quite remarkable. It purports to create an open list system for the election of MEPs, but does no such thing. The proposed system would destroy the flexibility of the regional list system proposed by the Government.
I invite right hon. and hon. Members to read the amendment, which is on page 2070 of the amendment paper. It proposes that elected MEPs are allocated a constituency within each region. It states:
each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;

(c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;
(d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub-paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent".

The Conservatives have proposed a quite remarkable arrangement.
It is fundamental to our democracy that voters choose their constituency and their representative. Under the system proposed in the amendments, the representative would choose the voters, even if the voters would not have chosen that representative. A successful MEP might have to choose a constituency that he or she did not want to represent or might be forced to represent a constituency that he or she might not want. It would be the most extraordinary situation.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the amendment does not do the one thing that she thought it would do—provide open lists and give the elector an opportunity to alter the order of the parties' ranking?

Mr. Straw: It certainly would not do that. Nor would it give the electors choice over the constituency MEP. That choice would not made until after the election on the basis of the choices made by successful MEPs, not by the voters.
I am conscious of the time, so let me deal with the issue of divisors, which took up a great deal of time in the debate on 25 November. As I have already explained, I inadvertently misled the House about the d'Hondt divisor rather than the Sainte-Lague divisor. I should also explain

that, even on the basis of accurate calculations, the difference is very limited. It is worth the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind the fact that d'Hondt is used most widely across Europe. Sainte-Lague, which has been proposed by the Liberal Democrats, is not used in any European state for the election of MEPs. The only state that uses Sainte-Lague is Sweden where, instead of the initial divisor being three, it has been modified to the square root of two, which is 1.4.

Mr. Clappison: Surrender.

Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall not go on about Sainte-Lague any more except in one respect.

Mr. Allan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, when making comparisons with other European countries, the critical factor in respect of the divisor is the size of the constituency? As most European countries use whole country constituencies, d'Hondt may be more proportional elsewhere, although it would not be here, given the regional lists and the sizes of the constituencies.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. The Library appendix makes it clear that a number of European countries use regional list systems, and the difference is very small.
Let me pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The Liberal Democrats ought to be straightforward about why they want Sainte-Lague, although it is not used anywhere in Europe. They want it because they think that it favours smaller parties. It is not fairer and the fact that we would be the only country to use it in the whole of Europe, given its great diversity, proves our point. If we are to have a divisor, the best system is simply to follow the serial—one, two, three, four, five. That is what the d'Hondt system does, and it was used by the Conservatives in 1996.

Mr. Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in supporting the Sainte-Lague system, the Liberal Democrats are not supporting a system that favours small parties, as they claim? Indeed, the modified Sainte-Lague system that they favour was modified deliberately to exclude small parties. The system that they support favours middle-sized parties, particularly parties that receive 15 to 20 per cent. of the vote. A particular aspect of the Sainte-Lague system is that it rounds up to the nearest number parties that do not have a complete entitlement. That would benefit no party more than the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The two words that he was looking for are self-interest. No one could accuse the Labour party of self-interest in introducing the system. I do not deny that self-interest sometimes plays a part in our decisions and I am glad that the shadow Home Secretary accepts that. However, the system of proportional representation that we are introducing is bound to lead to the loss of a number of seats that the Labour party would otherwise have held.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked whether we used divisors to allocate seats between regions. Those whom the gods wish to make mad they first introduce to


divisors. I was not the only one to make errors in calculation under d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague. So did Professor Ian Maclean, who wrote a learned letter claiming that the system that we had used to allocate MEPs between the different regions was based on the system of Sainte-Lague divisors. That is wrong. If Professor Maclean or the hon. Member for Hertsmere had consulted page 5 of the Bill, they would have seen that we set out exactly the system to be used for the allocation of those seats. It is a very simple system which does not need divisors.
We divided the electorate in England by 71, which is the number of English MEPs. That produced an average figure of just over 521,000 electors per MEP. MEPs were then allocated to regions in such a way as to ensure that the sum of the divergences in each of the nine regions—ignoring plus or minus signs—was as low as possible. The minimum divergence is 146,012. Any future changes in the number of MEPs allocated to the different regions will be made automatically according to the arithmetic on page 5 of the Bill and not according to either Mr. d'Hondt or Mr. Sainte-Lague.

Mr. Syms: The Home Secretary said a moment ago that the system divided up the 71 seats in England and allocated the other seats—in other words, the division was not on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. Straw: That is because Scotland and Wales have been treated as separate regions. There was a debate on that the other day, when the matter was dealt with pretty well.
Let me deal with three further points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The first is registration. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in the name of the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) deal with the registration of political parties. The amendments would remove a definition of a registered party and of a party's list of candidates. The Bill would continue to provide that only registered parties could put forward lists of candidates, but there would be no explanation or definition of the terms in the legislation. I cannot honestly see what purpose the amendments would serve.
We believe that registration is important to ensure that, for example, only votes cast for legitimate party candidates are used in the calculation of the allocation of additional member seats. Registration is also a practical solution to the problem of misleading descriptions on the ballot paper, such as candidates describing themselves, as they did in the 1994 European elections—with quite inappropriate results—as Literal Democrats. In a separate Bill, we are bringing forward proposals for the registration of political parties. Obviously, we shall explain those proposals in greater detail when the Bill comes before the House.
I want to pick up on the point made in the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on new clause 4. We shall of course review the operation of the 1999 European election, which we hope will be the first to be conducted using a regional list system. Under the new clause, I, as Secretary of State, should, in conducting such a review, speculate on whether there would be any advantage in conducting further European parliamentary elections using what the new

clause calls "an open list system". Unless two elections are taking place, one using the system proposed in the Bill and the other the system suggested in the new clause, I am afraid that I cannot see how any Secretary of State could be expected to make any useful comparison. There would have been a trial run with only one system. A report such as the new clause would require would therefore be of doubtful value. As I said, there will be a review; I promise that we shall put it before the House. I hope that, in the light of that, my hon. Friend will see fit not to press his new clause.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned amendment No. 79. I understand the point that the Liberal Democrats are making, but, frankly, the amendment is unnecessary. Candidates for election in each parliamentary constituency are required to be supported by the signature of 30 electors in that constituency. The Secretary of State can retain, abandon or amend the provision for future parliamentary elections. It does not need to be included in the Bill. To require registered parties to provide 30 signatures from the new larger regions would therefore seem a rather pointless exercise. However, a requirement to provide a larger number would impose a significant burden on those required to check the signatures.
Although we have not yet decided to retain in part or abandon altogether the signature requirement for future parliamentary elections—we shall of course consult the parties about this—there is no need for the provision to be inserted in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed will consider not pressing his amendment.
This group of amendments addresses important issues that go to the heart of the Bill. Although I apologise to the Committee for doing so at great length, it is important to put the Government's position clearly on the record. As I have made clear, we believe that the system of election provided for in the Bill is the most suitable for electing Britain's Members of the European Parliament. However, we are prepared to listen—as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) and I have today—to the arguments for moving to a Belgium-type system. All the arguments that have been made today will be given the most careful consideration. I look forward to the rest of the debate with great interest.

Mr. Cash: I should like to explain my objection to the whole concept of list systems. I am not terribly concerned about whether the system is closed or open. My objection to it is tied up with the fact that there is a proper link between the constituency and the Member, which we have established over many centuries. Conservative political giants, such as Edmund Burke and others, have set out principles over an extended period on such a link. It has worked and has a great deal of support on both sides of the House and throughout the country. I unambiguously state my objection to the concept of proportional representation in whatever shape or form it appears.
Having said that, I should point out that, when the Labour party was last in government in 1977, it stated in paragraph 17 of its White Paper on electoral systems:
To abandon our traditional method in this way"—
by going to a list system—
would be a major constitutional innovation, the consequences of which are difficult to foresee. It would mean the absence of the sort of constituency link with which we are familiar and could lead to


changes in Party organisations, including giving the central or regional Party organisations a bigger role in nominating candidates. The electorate might take time to become accustomed to the new system and might be confused by the existence of separate procedures for national and European elections".
On the principal questions that I am addressing, nothing has changed since those days. The Labour party gave a perfectly convincing reason why a list system was unacceptable. It remains unacceptable—regardless of whether it is closed or open. It is objectionable and would be an abomination of the democratic electoral system which we have become used to and which could serve us well in future.
I fear that the gradual spreading of the fungus of the Bill's proposals on to the amendment paper in the name of my much respected right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, is a kind of Euro-osmosis, which is entering the House in so many different ways. For the reasons that I shall give, I am concerned that we have adopted a proposal which, in many respects, is similar in principle to the Government's. I fear that the process is growing and that it will cause us more and more difficulties.
Just because the Government have such a massive majority and times have changed is no reason to go down their route. I can almost hear the Home Secretary, when talking about the open list system, subsequently saying, "Well, after all, the Opposition were rather in favour of it. This is the kind of amendment that they tabled." Therefore, if the Home Secretary changes his mind, which is likely, he can say that there was agreement across the Committee.
The region is given enhanced stature under the proposals. It is impossible to maintain the constituency link with the tyranny of the party list system, which gives so much power to the centre and the party leadership, as in Germany and France, rather than to local associations. That point needs to be reaffirmed, over and again. The ever-increasing expansion of powers in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers through majority voting and co-decision procedures is eroding the principle of our ability in this House to make decisions. More power is being given to the centre.
I turn to the brilliant speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, made only two days ago in which he dealt with the question of proportional representation. He said:
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty gives the party the political power it needs to govern.
Before anyone thinks that that is a reference only to the Westminster Parliament, I should remind them that Euro-osmosis, which is spreading into our constitutional arrangements, could so easily end up effecting a transfer of thinking from the European dimension to our own Westminster system.
The reference that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made to
the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty
is directly related to the political power which is inherent in this House at the moment, but which is being eroded by the provisions of Maastricht and Amsterdam and the increase of co-decision, which has given the European Parliament power over our institutions. When we add the

proposals in the Bill for proportional representation and the list system, we can see how our system is being eroded.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Conservative party would fight the Prime Minister
every step of the way. PR is a system of unfair votes. It takes political power away from the electorate and gives it to small parties, who can use their seats in Parliament to make or break Governments.
We should remember that, in the 1930s, the Weimar republic's system of proportional representation gave enhanced credibility to Adolf Hitler. It is not to be underestimated. Erich Fromm made this point in a book called "Fear of Freedom" and said that the real reason why Hitler came to power was primarily because the politicians refused to take responsibility for their own actions.
7 pm
It is absurd to imagine that this system will produce better government. In present-day Germany, the Free Democrats, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, have acted as kingmakers in almost every election since the basic law was introduced, despite the fact that the party has barely 5 per cent. of the vote. The same applies in New Zealand, where the first party has faced similar difficulties following that country's adoption of PR. My right hon. Friend predicts, rightly, that that would happen in the United Kingdom as well.
This is a matter of fundamental importance, not only to the Conservative party but to the Labour party, and we must reflect on the implications of the Bill. It accompanies a vast increase, under the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, in the power of Europe over this House and this country. It is creating regions and an undemocratic system. We should vote against the clause, but, in addition, I would find it impossible to support proposals which included an open list system.

Mr. Mitchell: I intended to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwickupon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). It may be boring, like the Liberals, but I was going to opt for Belgium.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a careful and sustained analysis, which I enjoyed. He was convincing on some of the points that I wanted to raise. He may be coming late—and somewhat reluctantly—to proportional representation, but it is clear that he has a thorough understanding of it.
My right hon. Friend said that he would listen to the opinion of the House, and that he had an open mind. I rise to express my personal preference for a system which is proportional, but which has an open list—rather than the closed list system originally proposed by the Government. That may be the least of several evils, but then the whole Bill is the least of several evils. My perfect Bill on the European Parliament and European elections would be the "European Parliament (Obliteration and Total Destruction) Miscellaneous Provisions Bill". Since we are not dealing with such an enlightened and far-seeing Bill, but with this one, I have to choose on the basis of what is offered. What is offered is not the most attractive form of proportional representation. A list system, whether regional or national, gives too much power to the party.
I view this matter in the light of the eternal question we politicians ask: under the first-past-the-post system, it is, "Will I get elected in this constituency?" Under PR, the question is, "Will I get selected in this system?" I fear that, under a party list system, I probably would not be selected. As soon as my application disappeared into the Millbank mixmaster for sanitising, the answer would be sent to the Mitchell family, clustered in our humble dwelling in Grimsby—"Sorry. Application lost in processing. Reapply in 2005."
The party list system is all that is on offer, and I therefore I welcome it as a major step forward. We can improve it by making it an open list on the Belgian pattern. The most open list is STV in itself, but there is a range of openness in Europe. Perhaps Denmark's system—in which seats are allocated to candidates on the basis of individual preferences—is more desirable and open. It results in more changes in the placings in the list submitted by the party. At the last election, seven of the 16 MEPs elected were changed by the electorate. In Belgium, where there are much tighter restrictions, only one was changed. I would prefer Denmark, but the least of several evils again—Belgium—is all that is on offer from the amendment and the Government. Therefore, we should accept Belgium.
Why? First, the people would prefer an open list to a closed list. The ICM survey carried out for the Rowntree trust—a survey of 1,130 electors—showed that there was a narrow majority in favour of an open list. When they were asked to choose candidates on the basis of an open list, two fifths opted for the individual candidate. Three fifths plumped—in 18th century poll books, they used to say, "Get a plumper"—for the party. A substantial proportion of electors want to choose on the basis of the candidates.
The Electoral Reform Society's own survey was based on eight focus groups, and was conducted by NOP. I keep applying to get on one of those focus groups, as I want to be a person of influence in this country and on the Government. My application is constantly rejected. I cannot understand it—it is a form of discrimination that the Home Secretary should investigate. The people in the focus groups preferred an open system, because they resented the restriction on their freedom to choose a candidate if they wanted to, which is implicit in the closed system. It is not that most would choose on that basis, but they want to be free to choose. They feel that anything else is a restriction.
Moving to an open list, following the Belgian precedent, will not produce drastic changes. People will not totally reverse the order that the party puts down, but the fact that the voters have the ability to make changes is a pressure on the party to present the most acceptable and attractive list of candidates—selecting candidates for voter appeal, rather than for machine appeal. That is an important difference. It would force the parties to offer more women candidates. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary raised a serious doubt in my mind about ethnic candidates, and he was probably right about that. However, the list system would advance the cause of women. Indeed, I do not know why we could not adopt the European zipper system, under which voters must zip from male to female candidates. We seem to prefer our women unzipped in the Labour party. I am digging myself into a hole, so I shall move on quickly. However, the Labour party should think seriously about

how the open system would require it to adopt a more attractive list, instead of dominating the closed list as currently proposed.
I have been a longstanding advocate of proportional representation. The first-past-the-post system kept Mrs. Thatcher in power in a minority Government—the dictatorship of the minority. We should change the system as quickly as possible—in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and in the European elections. I would prefer a better and more popular system for the European elections, but the one proposed is the best that we will get. It is an important advance for the cause of proportional representation, fairness and democracy.

Mr. Allan: I wish to return to the subject of divisors—the mathematical sort that are infinitely less interesting than the small Wiltshire market town represented by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). When my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked me to talk about d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague, I thought that their most interesting aspect was their pronunciation. As it is not yet time for bed, I do not intend to go into the mathematical calculations, especially as I would probably get them wrong—something of which the Home Secretary has no little experience.
We do not need to consider the workings of the divisors so much as their outcomes. In particular, we need to examine how proportional the results are. In other words, how accurately do the divisors reflect the votes that were cast? The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) cited the academic support for Sainte-Lague as the more proportional of the two. Indeed, the study by Professor Maclean begins:
Mr. Straw's remarks were entertaining and generally well informed.
That is a good start, but Professor Maclean makes the point that all systems need a rounding procedure and produce lucky and unlucky parties. He states:
on average, and by any proportionality index, the Ste-Lague algorithm will always be the one that distributes luck most evenly among the large and the small.
Contrary to the allegation made by a Labour Member earlier, the professor also states that the Sainte-Lague formula
does not 'favour small parties' … it is neutral among parties of all sizes.
In other words, the Sainte-Lague formula will distribute the luck according to the votes cast. If a party happens to receive a number of votes that falls midway between representatives, it will be lucky in some instances. If it improves vote share or loses votes, the luck will fall elsewhere.
Our research, based on the 1997 general election results, showed that the d'Hondt formula applied to Wales would have given the Labour party 80 per cent. of the representatives for 55 per cent. of the vote. The Sainte-Lague formula would have given the Labour party 60 per cent. of the representatives for 55 per cent. of the vote. It should be clear to the Committee that the latter is preferable to the former and I ask the Home Secretary to accept the evidence and adopt the fairer divisor. We should not adopt the easy option, but the more proportional option.


If we are to adopt a proportional system—I am pleased that the Government have accepted that—we should adopt the most proportional system, instead of a divisor that will lead to disproportionate results.

Mr. St. Aubyn: As the hon. Gentleman point out, proportionality is a relative term, not an absolute term. Will he consider the St. Aubyn system, which says that the first-past-the-post system is a form of proportional representation and gets rid of the need to use divisors?

Mr. Allan: It is clear, from the comments by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—or the Great Grimsby Member as he is often described in my local media—that the first-past-the-post system gave hugely disproportionate results in the 1980s. The proportionality index between the number of representatives and the number of first-past-the-post votes cast is wider than any of the other systems proposed today.
The Home Secretary should consider Professor Maclean' s evidence. He should overlook the small technical errors made by both sides and reflect on the fact that Sainte-Lague is significantly more proportional, and therefore fairer, to all parties irrespective of size. It simply distributes the luck evenly, instead of in favour of larger parties.

Mrs. May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to point out to the Home Secretary that I am a new Conservative Member who has never been a party apparatchik. Moreover, I am a female Member who was not selected from a closed, all-woman shortlist, like so many of his hon. Friends. I was selected on merit from an open list of both men and women. The female Members on the Conservative Benches do not need the patronising attitudes of the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: I am sorry, but I am limited in the time I have to speak.
I do not want a system of proportional representation, because it would lead to fragmented and unstable Governments. It would also give increased power to fringe parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is the only Member to have mentioned the danger that a proportional representation system would give power to extreme parties, but I am sure that many hon. Members would not wish to see some of those parties with such power.
Proportional representation would sever the link between the elected representatives and their constituencies. That is especially true of the system proposed by the Government. PR also gives increased power to the centres of parties. Labour Members have claimed that Members of the European Parliament do not have that link with their constituencies. I refute that and the contrary point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who has experience as a representative of a European parliamentary constituency. I can tell the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who claimed that Members

of the European Parliament did not have a link with their constituencies, that the Member of the European Parliament for Thames Valley—my European constituency—is well known and active in his constituency. He takes up issues of interest for individual constituents and of general interest for the whole constituency.
The vital link between elected representatives and their constituencies is the fundamental basis of our parliamentary democracy and our electoral system at all levels. That link means that elected representatives can take up the interests of their constituents and of the constituencies as a whole. That link will be severed under the Government's proposals and our democracy will be the poorer.
I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the debate, as he claimed he would. I trust that he will listen to the debate in this Committee and not only to the focus group that he has commissioned to produce proposals by the end of next week. The view has been expressed across the Committee that any list system adopted should be an open system, not a closed system. One of my concerns about the Government's proposals is that they will take power away from the electorate. They will sever the link between the elected representatives and their constituencies. Constituencies will no longer be able to judge how effective their representatives have been and vote on that basis. We know why the Labour party came forward with proposals for the closed regional list—it did that because it wanted to have the power in the centre. We in the Conservative party are ensuring that it is the members who have the democratic right to choose.
I close my remarks by quoting from the paper by Professor Dunleavy, Dr. Margetts and Stuart Weir, which has been quoted by several hon. Members. What their research showed was not that two thirds of people wanted a regional list system, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) suggested, but that, although people were reasonably happy with the ballot papers, open and closed list, with which they were presented, when they looked closer, a majority of voters would prefer an open list. The paper states:
If a closed list system is adopted, then the parties will have to look carefully at the processes by which their candidate lists are created, to ensure that they are seen as legitimate. At present, Labour looks to be most at risk".

Mr. Syms: I should start with the usual health warning given by Conservative Members, which is that I am very much in favour of first past the post. Having said that, I do not believe that we can completely disaggregate this debate from the one we had on Tuesday, because every excuse for not changing the system is based on the fact that the regions do not suit any change.
We heard the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) telling us that, if one has to have a proportional system, STV works reasonably well in constituencies of three to five members. However, that would be difficult in the south-east of England, given its size. Several hon. Members have argued in favour of having open lists, yet the Home Secretary himself has said that an open list would be difficult in the south-east of England. Of course it would: in an area containing 5 million or 6 million people, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate between potential candidates.
The real problem and the crux of the Bill is the size of the regions. We need to marry up the constituency size with the electoral system and take both together if we are to strike the right balance when deciding which electoral system to use. The Bill fails to do that, which is a great pity. I am opposed to the closed list system that has been proposed and I believe that an open list system would be better. However, in terms of the Bill, that would be like trying to turn a pig into a racehorse. The Bill is not well balanced in terms of either the regions or the electoral system proposed.
Among the points raised in the debate was the allocation of seats between countries. As the Home Secretary said, England was divided into 71 seats and the rest of the seats were allocated. That means that it was not done on a United Kingdom basis and so there is a degree of over representation in Scotland and Wales. That is an important matter.
On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked the relevant question of how parties purge lists when those on a list or elected on a list system leave that political party. In an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), I raised the issue of how, when a party has nominated five candidates on a list and four are elected, the fifth has to stay on that list—the list has to remain relevant until the next set of nominations are drawn up. That is four years and a lot can happen in four years. What happens if a vacancy occurs and No. 5 on the list has gone to the Bahamas, or joined another party, or is out of favour within the party? Those matters need to be addressed, or there will be difficulties.
The passage of time tends to change people's political priorities, but, with a closed list system, we do away with by-elections. One of the advantages of STV is that it allows for by-elections, albeit under an alternative vote system, or sometimes a first-past-the-post vote as they have in southern Ireland. A closed list system means that the next person on the list moves up and the electors do not get the benefit of a by-election, in which they can express their opinion on the political parties of the day.

Mr. Clappison: The Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to engage in analysis of divisors and so forth. The Home Secretary was fairly brave to go once more down that route, but I prefer to deal with broad propositions which I can make with a reasonable degree of assurance.
The first of those propositions is that the Government have been proceeding on a mistake—that, seeking proportionality, they have mistakenly chosen a system that is less proportional than another. The Government have got it wrong. I make that proposition with a reasonable degree of assurance. My second proposition is made with complete assurance. It is that the Liberal Democrats will seek a system that benefits the Liberal Democrats' self-interest. I can say that with complete assurance.
With an equal degree of assurance, I can state that the constituency link is a far better system from the point of view of the interest of electors than the system proposed by the Government. The Government's system was not designed for the benefit of individual electors or of individual MEPs; it was designed for the benefit of the party machine, and we put that on the record. The Bill would be much better if it were amended to reintroduce a constituency link. We are in favour of such a link in principle and we are not persuaded by the Home Secretary's arguments, especially as even he did not go so far as to say that he was against a constituency link in principle.
We are also deeply worried by the Government's approach to registration and by the way in which they have introduced the subject of registration at this late stage and with three major constitutional Bills on the go. We are concerned about that, especially given that the question of registration comes against the background of a Bill that is becoming increasingly tatty. The Bill shows all the signs of fraying at the edges and of mistakes being made. To be fair to the Home Secretary, I know that he is not the greatest enthusiast for the legislation and, to a certain extent, I acquit him of responsibility for it. Nevertheless, we think that this is a bad Bill and we shall support our amendments.

Mr. Trimble: It has been an interesting debate. Looking back, what stands out in my mind is the cowardice of the Liberal Democrats in not supporting what they said is their first preference.

Mr. Beith: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would know that I praised his and said that we strongly supported his passionate commitment to STV.

Mr. Trimble: This was intended to be a short summing up, but if the right hon. Gentleman comes with that again, I might be tempted to push my amendment to a Division to see whether he will support it. That support should have been shown by signing the amendment and being prepared to vote for it and the Liberal Democrats' failure in that sense is what I was referring to.
I was astonished by the Conservatives' audacity in attacking a closed regional list system, without explaining why they had changed their minds since introducing such a system in the House less than two years ago. I must commend the Home Secretary on the open-minded approach he has adopted and I hope that he will move toward an open list system before the Bill completes all its stages. I should have liked to have a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom, but it is clear that there is no support for that in the Committee and there is business to be done. Consequently, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 1, line 25, leave out from 'be' to end of line 26 and insert
'an open regional list system.

3A. An open regional list system is a system which complies with the following requirements, namely—

(a) each electoral region shall be divided into a number of constituencies equal to the number of MEPs to be elected for that region in accordance with subsection 2(4) above and Schedule 1;
(b) each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;
(c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;
(d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub—paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent, and;
(e) if an elected candidate has nominated a constituency which no candidate elected before him has nominated, he shall represent that constituency even if a candidate elected before him, whose own nominated constituency has been taken, seeks to choose it.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 100, Noes 274.

Division No. 180]
7.27 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Arbuthnot, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Leigh, Edward


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Body, Sir Richard
Lidington, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Major, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Norman, Archie


Collins, Tim
Ottaway, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Streeter, Gary


Fraser, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tredinnick, David


Green, Damian
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Walter, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Wardle, Charles


Hawkins, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heald, Oliver
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Willetts, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Woodward, Shaun


Horam, John
Yeo, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Nigel Waterson and


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Blizzard, Bob


Banks, Tony
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul



Borrow, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hanson, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Harvey, Nick


Brake, Tom
Healey, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Browne, Desmond
Hepburn, Stephen


Buck, Ms Karen
Heppell, John


Burden, Richard
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Burgon, Colin
Hill, Keith


Burstow, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Cable, Dr Vincent
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hope, Phil


Caplin, Ivor
Hopkins, Kelvin


Caton, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cawsey, Ian
Howells, Dr Kim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Chaytor, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chidgey, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hurst, Alan


Clapham, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Ingram, Adam



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jenkins, Brian


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)



Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Connarty, Michael



Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cotter, Brian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cranston, Ross
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Darvill, Keith
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kidney, David


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Doran, Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Drown, Ms Julia
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAllion, John


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCabe, Steve


Fatchett, Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Feam, Ronnie
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonnell, John


Flint, Caroline
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Follett, Barbara
Mclsaac, Shona


Foster, Don (Bath)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Gardiner, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mandelson, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Merron, Gillian






Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Spellar, John


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Stoate, Dr Howard


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


…pik, Lembit
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Vaz, Keith


Rendel, David
Vis, Dr Rudi


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
White, Brian


Roy, Frank
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruane, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wills, Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Wilson, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Winnick, David


Sawford, Phil
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Woolas, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wray, James


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wyatt, Derek


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'number' to end and insert 'shown below.

Number of seats already allocated
Divisor


2
3


3
5


4
7


5
9


6
11


7
13


8
15


9
17


10
19.'

—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 251.

Division No. 181]
[7.39 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Baker, Norman
Harvey, Nick


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Öpik, Lembit



Rendel, David


Brake, Tom
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Cable, Dr Vincent



Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Chidgey, David
Mr. Brian Cotter and


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mr. Adrian Sanders.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darvill, Keith


Ainger, Nick
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Alexander, Douglas
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dawson, Hilton


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dowd, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Drew, David


Austin, John
Drown, Ms Julia


Banks, Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barnes, Harry
Efford, Clive


Battle, John
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beard, Nigel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Flint, Caroline


Bennett, Andrew F
Follett, Barbara


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Best, Harold
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blizzard, Bob
Gardiner, Barry


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Borrow, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradshaw, Ben
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Grogan, John


Browne, Desmond
Hain, Peter


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burden, Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burgon, Colin
Hanson, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Healey, John


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caplin, Ivor
Hepburn, Stephen


Caton, Martin
Heppell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Home Robertson, John



Hope, Phil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cooper, Yvette
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)






Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Robertson, Rt Hon George



(Hamilton S)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roy, Frank


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ruane, Chris


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kidney, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sawford, Phil


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sedgemore, Brian


Laxton, Bob
Shaw, Jonathan


Lepper, David
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Livingstone, Ken
Singh, Marsha


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Spellar, John


Mclsaac, Shona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McNamara, Kevin
Stinchcombe, Paul


McNulty, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard


MacShane, Denis
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stringer, Graham


McWalter, Tony
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Timms, Stephen


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Tipping, Paddy


Maxton, John
Touhig, Don


Merron, Gillian
Trickett, Jon


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Miller Andrew
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mitchell, Austin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Ward, Ms Claire


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Watts, David


Mudie, George
White, Brian


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Hara, Eddie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wills, Michael


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wilson, Brian


Pearson, Ian
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Plaskitt, James
Wood, Mike


Pollard, Kerry
Woolas, Phil


Pond, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Pound, Stephen
Wray, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wyatt, Derek


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Greg Pope and


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24.—[Sir Brian Mawhinney.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 98, Noes 267.

Division No. 182]
[7.49 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Arbuthnot, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lansley, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Leigh, Edward


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Body, Sir Richard
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill, John
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Norman, Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Day, Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Sayeed, Jonathan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Shepherd, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Spring, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Streeter, Gary


Flight, Howard
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Syms, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Fraser, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gibb, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Trend, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tyrie, Andrew


Green, Damian
Viggers, Peter


Greenway, John
Walter, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Wardle, Charles


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hammond, Philip
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hawkins, Nick
Willetts, David


Heald, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Horam, John



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. James Cran and


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Nigel Waterson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allan, Richard
Berth, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Austin, John
Blizzard, Bob


Baker, Norman
Boateng, Paul


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Borrow, David


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)






Bradshaw, Ben
Healey, John


Brake, Tom
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hepburn, Stephen


Browne, Desmond
Heppell, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Burden, Richard
Hill, Keith


Burgon, Colin
Hinchliffe, David


Burnett, John
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Burstow, Paul
Hoey, Kate


Butler, Mrs Christine
Home Robertson, John


Byers, Stephen
Hope, Phil


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hopkins, Kelvin


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Caplin, Ivor
Howells, Dr Kim


Caton, Martin
Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hurst, Alan


Chaytor, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Chidgey, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)



Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Colman, Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Connarty, Michael
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cooper, Yvette
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cotter, Brian
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cranston, Ross
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kidney, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Laxton, Bob


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lepper, David


Davidson, Ian
Leslie, Christopher


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dawson, Hilton
Linton, Martin


Dean, Mrs Janet
Livingstone, Ken


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dowd, Jim
Love, Andrew


Drew, David
McAllion, John


Drown, Ms Julia
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McCabe, Steve


Efford, Clive
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ennis, Jeff
McDonnell, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fatchett, Derek
Mclsaac, Shona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Flint, Caroline
Mackinlay, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fyfe, Maria
McWalter, Tony


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Mandelson, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Merron, Gillian


Grogan, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mitchell, Austin


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hanson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Oner, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Öpik, Lembit
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stringer, Graham


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Rooney, Terry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roy, Frank
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruane, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sanders, Adrian
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

8 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'at' and insert 'in respect of'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 37.

Ms Quin: These are simple drafting amendments that make no substantive alteration to the Bill, but ensure that the status quo is not altered as regards an aspect of the franchise.
As members of the Committee may know, it is quite common for members of the armed services to be registered to vote in the constituency that contained their last civilian address, even though neither they nor any members of their family live there any longer. Such people are, technically, registered not at a specific address but in respect of their previous address, which is why the Bill is being amended.
I stress that these minor amendments do not change the status quo. Indeed, they confirm it with regard to existing rules on the franchise.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'at' and insert 'in respect of'.—[Ms Quin.]

Ms Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 40, leave out
'representatives to the European Parliament'
and insert 'MEPs'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 35.

Ms Quin: These are also simple drafting amendments, which, again, make no substantive alteration to the Bill.
Everywhere else in the Bill, MEPs are referred to as just that. However, one rogue reference to the former description of
representatives to the European Parliament
has crept in. Amendment No. 29 corrects that. I was elected to the European Parliament in 1979 and can remember that various documents referred to us by a variety of names, for example, Member of the European Parliament. I remember getting a letter addressed to Joyce Quin, MEA—Member of the European Assembly. Another was addressed to Joyce Quin, REA—Representative of the European Assembly. That experience was shared by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was one of my MEP colleagues. Amendment No. 29 will stop such confusion and ensure that the proper title, MEP, is used.
Amendment No. 35 removes an unnecessary reference. Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which schedule 2 to the Bill amends, permits regulations to be made on aspects of the conduct of elections. Among the things that it will be possible to do by means of regulation is to prevent individuals from standing more than once. As drafted, the Bill talks about standing more than once at a "general election of MEPs".
On reflection, and having considered the view of Parliamentary Counsel, we concluded that the last two words are unnecessary, as they are implicit in a measure that deals specifically with the election of MEPs.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 41, after 'State' insert
', provided that the poll shall always be held on Thursday.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in page 3, line 41, at end insert 'except a Sunday'.
No. 13, in page 3, line 42, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
No. 15, in page 3, line 43, at end add—
'(3) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The effect of the amendment is that elections to the European Parliament under the new

system will be held on a Thursday, and that the designated date should be subject to affirmative approval by Parliament.
The amendment is necessary because of the attitude that the Government have taken on the issue. It is clear that new Labour, new Europe, new harmonisation is the agenda. As the Minister knows, most of the countries in the European Union hold their elections on a Sunday. It is clear to Opposition Members that part of the Government's hidden agenda is to harmonise our elections with those of the majority of countries in Europe and to move from our traditional Thursday to a Sunday.
There is no statutory requirement for general elections or, indeed, European elections, to be held on a Thursday, but in this country they have been held on Thursdays since 1935.

Mr. John M. Taylor: As my right hon. Friend knows, like the Minister, I was successful in the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. In that year, the elections in the United Kingdom were held on the Thursday and the votes were counted on the Sunday. Is there a way to square that circle?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. These amendments deal with the electoral process. My understanding of European law is that, although there are four days on which elections can be held, the counting must take place simultaneously. That is why my hon. Friend was elected on the Thursday but did not know it until the Sunday.
I stress the importance that we attach to continuing the tradition, and our concern that the Government have a hidden agenda to undermine it. Indeed, in our legislation, Sunday has always been excluded from the electoral timetable. Since 1981, Saturday has also been excluded. I am led to believe that to have elections on a Sunday would require primary legislation. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us whether that is true.
There is no question but that, were elections to be shifted from Thursday to Sunday, they would become a much more expensive process than at present. Given the money that the Government plan to spend on holding the regional list elections, we see no justification for that expense, as we have made clear, or for the additional expense incurred by requiring people to work from early morning on the Sunday to the later hours of Monday. It would be a huge imposition on all those who had to help to conduct the election.
We all know from our parliamentary experience the number of people involved in, and the complexity of, organising a parliamentary constituency election with some 60,000 to 70,000 voters. The House has still not come to terms with the complexity that will be involved in running an election for 5 million or 6 million voters in a particular region. The manpower demands will be enormous. The cost consequences of holding an election on a Thursday will be huge, but they will be even worse on a Sunday.
Many of us have always judged Sundays to be special. We have had many a debate about the importance of separating Sunday from the rest of the week, for religious, workplace and family reasons. If the Minister replies that the Government will not push for elections on Sundays and undertake never to do so, that will satisfy us and


would be welcomed by the Committee. However, unless she rules out such an option, it would be a grave misjudgment on her part to believe that there might not be a reaction across the country. Even if she says that it will not happen in 1999, that will simply increase the concern of those who will then wonder whether it will happen in subsequent elections. The issue should not be partisan; a commitment to rule out Sunday elections would satisfy the Committee.
I guess that the Minister will say that she wants to keep open the option of voting on a Sunday, because it might help to increase turnout. In anticipation of that argument, I looked at some statistics. I compared and contrasted the percentage turnout at the most recent general election with that at the most recent European election in 1994. The Minister will probably say that the number of Britons voting in that European election was considerably less than the number of those voting in the general election, and she will be right. The figure for last May was 71.5 per cent., which was a low turnout by our normal general election standards, and it was only 36.4 per cent. in the European election in 1994.
In Ireland, which also votes on a Thursday, the last general election turnout was 65.9 per cent., but it was only 44 per cent. in 1994. There is a case to be made that voting on Thursdays results in a percentage reduction in the European election turnout, but the same happens when voting is held on Sundays.
I offer the hon. Lady two countries' statistics. In the 1995 general election in Portugal, 66.5 per cent. of the electorate voted, but in the European election only 35.6 per cent. of the electorate voted. In Germany, which is frequently held up to us as the dynamo or the motor of the European Union—[Interruption.] I select my words carefully—the general election turnout in 1994 was 79 per cent., but in the European election it dropped to 60.1 per cent.
The point that I seek to make is that in virtually every country there is a drop-off, sometimes a significant drop-off, between general election turnout and European election turnout, irrespective of the day of the week on which the election is held.

Ms Jenny Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with what happens in this country? Because of the rules governing postal votes, people may be unable to vote if they are called away from their constituency at extremely short notice to work on election day, which is a growing trend. Most people still do not work on Sundays, but if we enabled people to vote on Sundays, more of them could vote.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that postal vote applications close some two weeks before election day, so the argument that moving to a Sunday would somehow enhance electoral turnout has no validity.

Mr. Loughton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the busiest times at polling stations—I have sat outside polling stations during many elections—are when people are on their way to work in the morning and when they return from work in the evening. Most people do not go

to work on a Sunday, and the incentive for them to go out on a Sunday specifically to vote is less. It is more convenient for them to vote on the way to or from work.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for the clarity with which he made it—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much background noise in the Chamber.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: At the heart of the amendment is our concern that the Government plan, either next year or subsequently, to harmonise policy with the majority of European countries and shift elections from Thursdays to Sundays. I remind the Minister that Sunday legislation has traditionally been given a free vote in this House. If she does not like the way in which our amendment is framed, we should be perfectly content for her to take it away and bring it back on Report appropriately framed, if that would help. Unless we get from her a commitment that European elections will continue to be scheduled to take place on Thursdays, we shall press the amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I wish to speak gently and constructively on amendment No. 73. I raised this matter on Second Reading, when it was given a sympathetic response by the Secretary of State, who said that he would look at the issue.
In two of the European seats in Scotland we do not count, let alone consider voting, on a Sunday. That is in respect for those who hold strong Sabbatarian views. If we move to vote on Sundays, we shall disfranchise a substantial number of people, especially in the highlands and islands and the north-east of Scotland, but also in other areas of the United Kingdom. If we want an inclusive society, we must respect the views of those who would feel that such a move was contrary to their beliefs.
Having always been involved in the European elections, I know that waiting from 10 o'clock on a Thursday night to a Monday morning when we start the count is not the easiest of weekends to live through. A great deal of nail biting and filling in of time goes on.
The Committee should treat this as a matter of respect. We should not disfranchise people with strong religious beliefs, which we should respect, irrespective of our own views. I am a member of my Church and a practising Christian. I would have difficulty with voting on a Sunday, as would many of my constituents.

Mr. Allan: Liberal Democrat Members believe that there should be no automatic presumption that elections should be held on Thursdays. However, some of my hon. Friends, like the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), represent people who hold strong Sabbatarian views, and others have strong views of their own. They expect a free vote on Sunday elections, and my party is committed to such a vote on the Scottish National party amendment. We are less supportive of the proposition that the Bill should specify Thursday as the day on which elections are held. We have no problem with the other four days, and there is a strong case for using Saturday for weekend


voting. Schoolchildren would benefit from not having their education disrupted by schools becoming polling stations on weekdays.

Dr. Rudi Vis: I take the point that was made about Scotland, but we should take into account the fact that voting on a Saturday would be wholly unacceptable to Jewish people.

Mr. Allan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the sensitivities of various groups. Whatever day we choose, there will be problems. We shall hold a free vote on the amendment because people hold strong religious beliefs. I have misgivings about using Thursdays, because people who work or who have family responsibilities have problems voting then.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the Government's proposal and support amendment No. 12, for two reasons. First, many people have a conscientious objection to voting on a Sunday. I do not, but I would be sad if the Committee, directly or indirectly, put in place a proposal that would have the practical consequence of disfranchising a substantial number of people.
Secondly, I am against giving Governments the power to make laws without having proper recourse to the House. The Minister will say that an order will have to be laid, I suspect under the negative procedure. There would be no proper debate; only, at best, an hour and a half of discussion of an unamendable order. A debate in the Chamber is unlikely. I am against giving to Governments powers that do not have to be conferred on Governments.
For those reasons—conscientious objection and the impropriety of the proposal—I support the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).

Miss McIntosh: I shall speak against amendment No. 73 and be specific about why European Parliament elections can be held on a limited number of days.
There is a Council of Ministers agreement that an election must be held within an envelope of days, between Thursday and Sunday. The treaty and regulations govern the handling of elections.
I support amendment No. 12. My right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) put powerful arguments in favour of holding elections on Thursdays, not Sundays, because of the additional expense. I fear the consequences of changing the day on which elections are held and caution against that. It would be difficult for the very young and the very old to adapt to such a change. if an election were not held on a Thursday, some people might think that it was of no consequence. If elections in this country are always to be held on a Thursday, that day should also be used for the European Parliament election.

Mrs. May: I support amendment No. 12, and the comments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about religious objections that would prevent people from voting. Her amendment refers to Sundays, and the

hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) reminded us of the problems with Saturdays. I understand that both days are ruled out because some people are unwilling to vote then.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) seemed to be against voting on Saturdays and Sundays, but appeared not to favour weekdays because people were working. It is inevitable that a weekday will be used because Saturdays and Sundays are unacceptable to some people as polling days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said, if we are to use a weekday, we should stick with the one that we have always used, because people know that important elections are held on that day.
The Bill does not state the hours during which polling stations will be open, perhaps because they are specified in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. I assume that the polling hours will be as they are at present.
We must encourage people to vote and make it easier for them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that many people vote on the way to or from work. The hours during which polling stations are open are crucial to enabling people to vote. What hours will polling stations be open on European election day?

Mr. Loughton: I want to reinforce the case against voting on Sundays instead of a working day. Just as people may not be available to vote on a Thursday, they may be unavailable on a Sunday for a host of reasons. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) is concerned about getting a 100 per cent. turnout, she should suggest that polling stations get in line with supermarkets and open 24 hours a day, or open not just on Thursday between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, but all day on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. People could choose the day on which to vote according to their religious convictions or business and family commitments.
The Bill does not make such changes, but it changes enough. We are discussing fundamental constitutional changes, the like of which have not been seen since we began electing Members to the European Parliament in 1979. We are not even making these changes to fall in line with the rest of Europe. Much has been said about not only how candidates will be selected differently by different parties, but how countries across the European Union use different electoral systems and vote on different days according to different types of regional government, different party structure and different party list. If Labour Members cannot even agree with that, can we not at least specify Thursdays? In the past, people have known where they are and have been able to make arrangements to vote. That has been the case for many years.
If people are serious about voting—if they are really interested in a democratic process—and, in this instance, if they are interested in electing MEPs, they will find a way of voting on a Thursday. Can we at least keep that link with the past?

Mr. Lansley: I did not intend to speak, but, having read the amendments and listened to the debate on them, I feel that they point compellingly to the argument


presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I also think that the argument has developed during the debate.
We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) for reminding us that it is incumbent on us to respect the views of minorities, and minority faiths in particular, whatever may be our personal view. I share the feeling of my right hon. Friend: although I am a practising member of the Church of England, I would not have any difficulty in voting on a Sunday, but I know and respect others who would. I also think that people with different faiths—Jewish or Muslim—might not want to vote on a Saturday. We should strain not to impinge on the views and interests of minorities. After all, as the debate has made clear, it is far from obvious that there is any benefit to be derived from holding elections at weekends.
Moreover, leaving aside the objections to which I have referred, weekend elections would be a significant constitutional innovation. Such an innovation should not be entered into lightly or ill-advisedly, and—as my right hon. Friend said—it should certainly not be entered into on the basis of an order laid by the Secretary of State without debate in the House and an affirmative resolution. I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I think that my right hon. Friend was right in saying that, under the Bill, the order would be made under the negative resolution procedure.
If the election is not to be held on a Saturday or a Sunday, I see no reason to give Ministers discretion to choose a day other than Thursday. I do not think that anyone has argued today that one weekday is better than, or different from, another. I think that we are all accustomed to voting on Thursdays. Returning officers, party organisations and, indeed, voters probably consider it normal to vote on Thursdays, and would think it abnormal and unconventional to do so on any other day. We are all creatures of habit, and I suspect that, as voters, we are all very much the same. I think that we might see a lower turnout on a weekday other than Thursday. If Saturdays and Sundays are excluded, therefore, there is everything to be said for accepting the proposal to specify Thursdays.
I dare say that any order presented by the Secretary of State will refer to a day within the normal confines of the election of MEPs on a Europewide basis. That has already been mentioned. Nevertheless, I feel that any discretion used by Ministers should involve an affirmative resolution of the House. It should be customary in the House for electoral matters to proceed as far as possible by way of consensus between parties, and as little as possible by dictate of the majority party. I hope that no Government would want to feel that they were contriving an electoral process—including election day—that was advantageous to that Government rather than to democracy.

Ms Quin: This short debate has raised a number of issues.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, seemed to want to be North-West Cambridgeshire's Mystic Meg. He tried to predict what I would say, and I am not sure whether he will be disappointed.
All the amendments deal with the day on which European general elections are held. Let me provide some background information about how the day is selected.

As I suspect the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) knew, the key document is the one entitled "Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to the decision of the Council of the European Communities dated the 20 September 1976". It provides that a European parliamentary general election must be held five years after the last election; but, should it prove impossible to hold an election on that exact day, the Council is empowered—if there is unanimous agreement—to vary the date by one month in either direction.
As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, the election period runs from the Thursday morning to the following Sunday. Under the legislation, each member state is free to pick the day within that period on which it wishes to hold its election. It is possible, therefore, to vary the day now, although we have no plans to do so.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and some of my hon. Friends, pointed out that it was theoretically possible to vary the day. The pros and cons of holding elections on Saturdays were discussed. Elections to the European Parliament are generally held on Sundays in many of our partner countries, but the Government have no plans to switch from our traditional Thursday polling day, and we certainly intend the 1999 elections to be held on a Thursday.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to rule out other days for all time, but, as we all know, Parliament cannot bind its successors, and it would be very foolish of me, as a junior Minister, to try to bind my successors for all time. I can only offer the right hon. Gentleman the reasonable proposition that we have no present plans to change.

Mr. Hogg: If that is the case, why not include it in the Bill?

Ms Quin: What is being suggested is no different from the arrangements that obtained during the 18 years for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in power. The Conservatives saw no need to change the arrangements in this way. I have said what the legal position is, in terms of all parties being able to vary the day, but I have also made it clear that we do not intend to do so.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said he did not feel that the voting day was a partisan matter, and there is considerable merit in that view, in regard to our own general elections as well. We are, however, dealing in this debate with the European elections and their legal base. I accept that, if we were tempted to go down such a route, there would be difficulties. Hon. Members have commented on that. Certainly, people in Britain are used to voting on Thursdays. As for the European elections, I think that the combination of a new voting system and a new voting day would be unfortunate. We hope and believe that the new voting system will encourage more people to vote in European elections, for many of the reasons that have been advanced during our debates. If we changed the voting day at the same time as we changed the electoral system, it would be extremely difficult to know what contribution each of the two innovations had made to the change in turnout.
As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has pointed out, there would be problems in certain parts of Scotland and, no doubt, in other parts of Britain where there would be strong religious objections to trying to introduce Sunday voting. I am tempted to say that Scotland pioneered Sunday trading, which I voted against, but the hon. Lady's points were well made in terms of the area to which she referred. As I have said, the Government have no plans to introduce Sunday voting for elections to the European Parliament and, because of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Moray will recognise that her amendment is unnecessary.
I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will see that the first of his amendments is unnecessary and that it could cause problems in the future. As I have already outlined, member states do not have a free hand in setting election dates. The election has to be held in a Thursday-to-Sunday period. It is possible—I accept that it is highly unlikely—that, at some time in the future, that could be changed to a Sunday-to-Wednesday period. In that case, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment would cause real problems and I urge him to withdraw it.
The right hon. Member referred to turnout. I listened to everything he had to say, but he seemed basically to be saying that turnout in the European elections tends to be lower than in national elections—we all know that. We hope and believe that the system we are introducing will encourage people to vote. Whatever the merits or demerits of our present first-past-the-post system, many votes do not count towards the final total. That will not be the case in the system that we are introducing for the European elections. We hope that the turnout for the next European election will be higher than in the past.

Mr. Syms: If the turnout is lower, will the Government reconsider their future position?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that after the elections we will look at what has happened and evaluate it. That was in response to a suggested amendment from a Labour Member. Obviously, we will look at the result of the elections and I hope that we will look at all the factors that obtained in the European parliamentary election period.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire began with a few snide comments about new Labour, new harmonisation. In case there is any doubt, let me make it clear that the Government have no interest in harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. I am more than happy to celebrate the diversity of the regions and the member states of the European Union.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I will not detain the Committee because I think that we should draw this issue to a conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that we could vote either at the weekend or during the week. For reasons that many hon. Members have adduced, voting at the weekend creates real difficulties. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a valid point which helped to

strengthen the argument about religious diversity in our country. This issue is important not only to Christians but to a whole variety of religious groups who hold their beliefs strongly and whose lives and life behaviour are influenced by those religious beliefs. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
8.45 pm
All were offering me encouragement for my point when I stressed that the House advances any issues involving Sunday activity on the basis of a free vote because it recognises that there are employment, family and religious consequences at weekends. It would be a sad day if the House, which is the ultimate defender of our freedoms, should seek to impinge on religious freedom.
The speech made by the Minister of State, was disappointing. I say that not in a partisan spirit but because she was not able to sense the mood of the points being made to her. The Minister said that no Government or House can bind its successors. She is right, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that is not an argument for not putting this in the Bill. All it means is that some future Government or Parliament would have to change the legislation. That is a more major step.
The Minister said that the previous Government did not do this and implied that, because of that, we have no right to make an issue of it now. We did not introduce this sort of legislation. We did not introduce legislation that was designed to produce a degree of harmonisation with the other countries in Europe in this electoral process.
What most concerned me about the Minister's speech was that she talked about two sets of innovations—the new system and the possibility of moving to Sunday voting. She said that the two changes would not take place in 1999 because we would not know which innovation had affected the turnout. That is slightly chilling. It seems to indicate that there was, in Government, a consideration of moving to Sunday right now and that there is certainly active consideration to look at that for a subsequent election.
The Minister has made her position clear, and she is not going to change. She has made it clear that she does not think that she has the freedom to change. The mood of the House and the mood of the debate has been quite clear. We think that there should be a clear commitment in the Bill that elections will continue to be held on a Thursday and a clear commitment that they will not be on a Sunday. The Minister will not give us that commitment on behalf of the Government so we will have to press the amendment to a Division.

Mrs. Ewing: In light of what has been said, the speech of the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was rather depressing because it was ungracious. I respect the points made on behalf of the Jewish faith. There are other minority faiths in the United Kingdom that we should consider, because we are an inclusive society. Given the good-natured and sensible response from the Minister, I wonder whether it would be possible to ensure that, on Report, it could be written into the Bill that the next elections will be held on a Thursday.

Ms Quin: I am grateful for the tone in which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) put her question. I am


happy to take advice, but I believe that that would not keep us in line with the original legal base on which the European parliamentary elections are founded. I have said that there is to be no change for these elections and that we have no plans to change the day and I would have hoped that that would be sufficient reassurance for the hon. Lady.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 95, Noes 223.

Division No. 183]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Amess, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Arbuthnot, James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Letwin, Oliver


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Major, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mates, Michael



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Norman, Archie


Collins, Tim
Page, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Streeter, Gary


Fraser, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hawkins, Nick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hayes, John
Wilkinson, John


Heald, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Yeo, Tim


Horam, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. James Cran and


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Nigel Waterson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allan, Richard
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkins, Charlotte
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Austin, John
Bennett, Andrew F


Baker, Norman
Be[...]ningham, Gerald


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Betts, Clive



Blizzard, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Boateng, Paul
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Borrow, David
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hope, Phil


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Bradshaw, Ben
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Browne, Desmond
Hurst, Alan


Buck, Ms Karen
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Burden, Richard
Jenkins, Brian


Burnett, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burstow, Paul



Butler, Mrs Christine
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)



Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selfy Oak)


Cawsey, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Chaytor, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Chidgey, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Kidney, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Laxton, Bob


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lepper, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Coaker, Vernon
Linton, Martin


Coleman, Iain
Livingstone, Ken


Colman, Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Connarty, Michael
Love, Andrew


Cooper, Yvette
McAllion, John


Corston, Ms Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cotter, Brian
McCabe, Steve


Cranston, Ross
McDonnell, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Darvill, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McNulty, Tony


Dawson, Hilton
MacShane, Denis


Dean, Mrs Janet
Mactaggart, Fiona


Doran, Frank
McWalter, Tony


Dowd, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Drew, David
Mandelson, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Efford, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Maxton, John


Flint, Caroline
Merron, Gillian


Follett, Barbara
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mitchell, Austin


Fyfe, Maria
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gapes, Mike
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gardiner, Barry
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gerrard, Neil
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mudie, George


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Hara, Eddie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Olner, Bill


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Öpik, Lembit


Grogan, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hain, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pearson, Ian


Hanson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Harvey, Nick
Plaskitt, James


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Pollard, Kerry


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pond, Chris


Hepburn, Stephen
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Pound, Stephen


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hill, Keith
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Prosser, Gwyn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford, Phil
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
White, Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, James


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Janet Anderson and


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

9 pm

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 43, at end add—
'3E.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe the form of the ballot paper to be used at the poll for the election of representatives to the European Parliament.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the ballot paper shall include, separately from the list of candidates, a brief explanatory statement describing the method of election and the procedure to be followed by each elector in casting his vote or votes.'.
I do not think that I should be courting too much controversy if I said that the simplicity which has been alleged on behalf of the new electoral system for the European elections is not invincibly self-evident to everyone. If the Committee has at times struggled with divisors, proportionality and so on, the electors will have even more of a struggle when confronted with the system.
We owe it to the electors to explain to them what is happening. We should not just present to them the choices that they are offered, but explain how the system works and what will happen after they have cast their votes. That is a fairly simple proposition which ought to be adhered to in a democracy.
We hope that the Government will welcome the amendment. It requires the ballot paper to include, separately from the list of candidates,
a brief explanatory statement describing the method of election and the procedure to he followed by each elector in casting his vote or votes.
That would be helpful to electors.
There are grounds for suspecting that the Government themselves feel that the system needs more explanation. There has been talk of expensive advertising campaigns. Apparently, there is an internal debate in the Government

about how best to explain the system to the public. The amendment provides one way of doing just that. Perhaps the Government should think carefully about providing reading rooms or something similar where electors could go to study the new system and see how to go about casting their vote.
The amendment is intended to be constructive. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on how the Government intend to explain the new system to the electorate and whether the names of the candidates will appear separately on the ballot as the amendment suggests.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but not with the precise form. The real issue is the complexity that flows from the changes that the Committee is considering. I do not think that the problem can be addressed by an explanatory statement attached to the ballot paper—if only because people going to a polling station do not expect to have to sit around for a long time reading an explanatory statement—but that we need an explanatory statement to be sent to the electorate is self-evident.
My suggestion is that the Minister agree to the principle set out in the amendment and agree further that an explanatory statement should be sent to all electors in good time for the relevant election. That would be most desirable and helpful.

Mr. Paul Burstow: The amendment provides the opportunity to raise the question of access to voting stations for blind and partially sighted people, a matter which I am sure concerns many hon. Members. I have raised this issue in debates on other Bills that will change our voting system. I should be interested to hear what plans the Government have to ensure that, when the new system of voting is introduced for the European elections, the maximum opportunity is provided to blind and partially sighted people to enable them to exercise their right to vote unaided and in person at the polling station.

Mr. John Hayes: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says and would like to extend the discussion to include access for people with a range of disabilities, not just those that he mentioned. It is a matter I have raised in the all-party disablement group. The European elections provide us with an opportunity to consider the question of access. I could not miss the chance to say that, because it is such an important matter.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have attended meetings of the all-party disablement group at which "Polls Apart 2", the report published by Scope, has been discussed. That report highlights concern about access to polling stations during the most recent general election. Several of Scope's recommendations should be considered so that we increase the turnout at the next European parliamentary elections.
I want to find out how the Government will ensure that blind and partially sighted people can vote unaided and in person at the polling station. They are often expected to


use a postal vote instead, but I want to disabuse people of the idea that that is acceptable. Blind and partially sighted people have a fundamental right to exercise their vote on the same day as everyone else. Will the Government experiment with braille templates and larger print formats, so that more people can exercise their vote in person in future European elections?

Miss McIntosh: The arguments for the amendment are self-evident and have been sufficiently rehearsed. My concern is that the local elections will be held on one system, but, within a month, the electors will be asked to vote under a novel and rather complicated system. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, what efforts will they make to explain the new procedures before electors enter the polling booth?

Ms Quin: I have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments in this brief debate. I shall respond in the spirit of the concerns that have been expressed, although I do not believe that the amendment is necessary or entirely helpful. On the aim and spirit of what has been said, there is little between the Opposition and the Government—I particularly endorse the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
I assure the Committee that the form of the ballot paper will be set out in regulations which will be made by the Secretary of State and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government firmly intend that the names of all the people included on party lists should appear on the ballot paper. The Committee will know that we arranged for four sample ballot papers to be placed in the Library. Those hon. Members—including, I presume, Opposition Front Benchers—who have examined the sample will have seen clearly that candidates' names appear. I hope that there are no doubts about the Government's intentions on that.
Obviously, as happens currently, a ballot paper will contain straightforward instructions to the elector about how to fill it in. The new system will continue to be simple—the instruction will be "Place one cross on the ballot paper". No doubt we can consider whether that wording could be improved or amplified, but there will certainly be something of that nature on the ballot paper.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested that the ballot paper should contain a description of how the electoral system works. Such a move would be unprecedented; it is a surprising proposal from a party that has argued against electoral reform. We do not believe, for the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is particularly helpful.
We do not have a description of the method of election on the ballot paper. 1 do not accept that there is less need to do so for elections conducted by the first-past-the-post system, as everyone, including first-time voters, is assumed to understand how it works.
Plenty of first-time voters may be unclear about the mechanics of the existing system. Equally, EU citizens can vote in local elections here, although they may not be familiar with the system. However, we do not provide them with explanations on the ballot paper, and with good reason. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the design of a ballot paper

should be as simple and clear as possible, with no information that might confuse voters or cause unnecessary delay in the voting process. It is significant that in Northern Ireland, where the more complicated STV system is used for all elections other than parliamentary ones, the ballot paper merely gives directions on how to vote, without further explanation of the system.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised an important point. Other hon. Members also referred to the importance of explaining to the electorate in the immediate run-up to the election how the system works. I am sure that there will be great interest in and discussion about the new voting system. The media, too, will play a part in explaining how the new system works. The Government will explore ways of explaining the new system to the electorate and everything will be done to ensure that there is no shortage of information detailing the mechanics of the new electoral system.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made some interesting points with which I have great sympathy although they were not directly relevant to the amendment. As he knows, because he has raised the issue in Adjournment debates, a working party under the chairmanship of the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is examining the issues, which are important, as I know from my own constituency. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the difficulties faced by blind, partially sighted and disabled people in gaining access to polling booths and participating properly in elections.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened to the Minister's response and I can assure her and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that my suggestion that reading rooms be set aside was slightly tongue in cheek. However, I am still concerned about the complexity of the new system which will be presented to the electorate. I share my right hon. and learned Friend's concern that it should be properly explained to the electorate. He made an important suggestion in that regard.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she framed her reply. I listened carefully, but I did not hear a great deal about how the Government proposed to explain the system to the electorate. It is all very well for the electorate to be invited to vote, but people will want to know what happens next. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) is concerned about that, I can assure him that the same issue perplexed the Home Secretary, who suggested that we embark on an expensive publicity campaign. The amendment would be one way to avoid that.
We still have not heard exactly how the Government propose to explain the new system to the electorate, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, although I am disappointed in some respects, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have spent a long time debating this clause because it is at the very heart of this rather unacceptable Bill.
Thus far, under the Government's leadership, we have deprived the people of Gibraltar of a vote and created regions that are neither recognisable nor manageable. We are to have a voting system, but the Government do not know what it will be. We are to have registered parties, but the Government have no idea what sort of registration there will be. The Government are setting aside the boundary commission and will not consult.
That is a brief but accurate summary of clause 1. It is for that reason that we shall vote against its standing part of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I have been in the House for 19 years, or thereabouts, and this is the most objectionable constitutional Bill that I can recall. There are four reasons for that.
The first is this: there is no convincing reason why we should make any change whatever. The only reason which has been given is that some other European states want us to make a change. I do not regard that as either a good or a sufficient reason. I have heard no other sustainable reason why we should make a change.
The second and different point is this: I regard a constituency-based form of election as essential to our democratic system. It has huge advantages. It provides for real accountability. Members of Parliament know precisely to whom they are accountable—first and foremost, their constituents. That will not be so under the proposed system. Under our system, electors know precisely to whom they can go for advice and representation, but under the proposed system for the European Parliament, they will have not a clue. There will be a very large list, and electors will not know to whom to look.
There is another point, too. Under the regional system, we are talking about large, complicated areas. The probability is that large urban areas will dominate the regional selection, with the result that particular issues, such as rural interests, will not be properly represented. Members of any elected representative body get to have a speciality because they are closely identified with the interests of a particular locality. That will not happen under the regional list system. We will be diminishing the accountability, knowledge and authority of the representatives. That is thoroughly bad news.
The last point is the one about which I feel most strongly. We should not give to the central institutions of any political party the right to govern so precisely the character and identity of the people who are to be elected. Be sure about this: nobody will be able to stand for any length of time, far less survive, in the European Parliament unless his or her views are accepted and compatible with those of his or her central political institutions. That cannot be right.
Where will be the free thinkers? Where will be the people who vote according to their conscience? Where, indeed, will be the eccentrics? They make a contribution. We can be certain that nobody will be adopted who does not share the dull conformity that for one moment

happens to be the accepted wisdom in their party. If they happen to be adopted, they will not be readopted. That will create a Parliament of clones.

Mr. Beith: I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am absolutely confident that, in the Liberal Democrat party, some people whose views do not correspond to those of the central party organisation will be elected, because it will be for ordinary party members to vote for whom they choose. I understood that his party was seeking, through the hustings, to make a similar arrangement. Although I welcome his support for open lists, I hope that he will pay some respect to the internal democracy that his party is cultivating.

Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that the Conservative party—and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrats—will choose from the membership, but that can change; the system will be what the Front Benchers of the time wish it to be. The Labour party is explicitly giving the power to its central institution, which will choose the representatives. I believe that that is a derogation from democracy. Once we start with the European Parliament, we may find that, by precedent, we move to other institutions, and ultimately to this House. I regard this as one of the worst Bills I have seen in 19 years in the House, and the clause encapsulates why it is so bad. I very much hope that the Committee votes against it.

Mr. Lansley: We have had debates in which we have won the arguments, but the Government have won the votes. One thing has arisen from our debate on Tuesday. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was wont to criticise my recommendation of the local Member of the European Parliament for Cambridgeshire. She fell into a trap, because I found that, on Monday evening, the MEP was in the hon. Lady's constituency, meeting his constituents. When she said, "We do not see him," she meant that she did not see him—his constituents do.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: The MEP may have shot his own fox, because that proves that no one recognises him.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly ignorant of the facts.
There has been no reflection on the impact of the Bill on incumbent MEPs. In respect of the incumbent MEP for my area, there would be a differential vote in his favour under a first-past-the-post system or an open list system because he is an excellent MEP. The Government are pursuing a closed list system, designed to make it an irrelevance to the electorate whether one is an incumbent MEP or not.
The first-past-the-post system—and particularly the open list system—should benefit incumbents, yet the Government do not go down that path. There are two reasons why that is so. First, they do not believe that incumbent MEPs from the Labour party would attract any preferential vote in their favour. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly—I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—Labour wants to control who are presented to the electorate and in what order they are presented.
Labour wants to censor and censure its MEPs for ideological or other reasons. That highlights the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about the damage that will be done by the Government's proposal to put party control before democratic control.

Ms Quin: As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out, we have had an extensive debate on what is the heart of the Bill. Because we have had that extensive debate, I can be brief.
Some strange claims have been made in this brief debate. The Conservatives claimed that the Government were introducing the system only because some other countries wanted us to make the change. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out on Second Reading and earlier this evening, there are clear reasons why the Government are making the change, including the work of the Plant commission and decisions at Labour party conferences from 1993 onwards. It was also a manifesto commitment.
There is a real basis for making the change in the Bill and carrying it out for the next European parliamentary elections. Some of the comments suggest that the electorate are somehow clueless and could not cope with change. I have a higher opinion of the electorate—they will cope successfully with the change. They will be able to understand and grapple with the Bill. They will do so not just because of the Government's explanations, but because our media—which are organised regionally—will help to provide a clear exposition to voters in the run-up to the election.
It is odd that, during the debate, Opposition Members have run down the very regional structure that they created. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that it would be impossible for eccentrics to be elected under the proposed system. As I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will agree, even though most European countries use a list system we are not short of eccentric Members in the European Parliament.
I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he would consider arguments advanced by hon. Members about the system that operates in Belgium—the open list, as opposed to the closed list—and then make an announcement. The Home Secretary, both on Second Reading and today, has listened carefully to the arguments, as have my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), and I. We will consider them carefully and, in the meantime, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 94.

Division No. 184]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Atkins, Charlotte
Beard, Nigel


Austin, John
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Bennett, Andrew F
Hill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Betts, Clive
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Blizzard, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hope, Phil


Borrow, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Bradshaw, Ben
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hurst, Alan


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Jenkins, Brian


Browne, Desmond
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Buck, Ms Karen



Burden, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Butler, Mrs Christine



Byers, Stephen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Caplin Ivor
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cawsey, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Keen, Alan (Feltnam & Heston)


Chaytor, David



Chisholm, Malcolm
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Laxton, Bob


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Lepper, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Linton, Martin


Coaker, Vernon
Livingstone, Ken


Coleman, Iain
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Colman, Tony
Love, Andrew


Connarty, Michael
McAllion, John


Cooper, Yvette
McAvoy, Thomas


Corston, Ms Jean
McCabe, Steve


Cranston, Ross
McDonnell, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Darvill, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McNulty, Tony


Dawson, Hilton
MacShane, Denis


Dean, Mrs Janet
Mactaggart, Fiona


Doran, Frank
McWalter, Tony


Dowd, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Drew, David
Mandelson, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Efford, Clive
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Miller, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
Mitchell, Austin


Follett, Barbara
Moran, Ms Margaret


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


Gardiner, Barry
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Gerrard, Neil



Gibson, Dr Ian
O'Hara, Eddie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Olner, Bill


Godsiff, Roger
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Öpik, Lembit


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pearson, Ian


Grogan, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hain, Peter
Plaskitt, James


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pollard, Kerry


Hanson, David
Pond, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Pope, Greg


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Pound, Stephen


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hepburn, Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Heppell, John
Prosser, Gwyn






Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tyler, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
White, Brian


Shipley, Ms Debra
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wills, Michael



Wilson, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wray, James


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Janet Anderson and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bercow, John
Lansley, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Leigh, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Major, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mates, Michael


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. James Cran and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ELECTORAL REGIONS IN ENGLAND

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Greenway: Clause 2 sweeps away the existing European constituencies and imposes instead the European electoral regions, which we shall discuss again in the debate on schedule 1. There has been no public consultation on the matter, and no reference to, or consideration by, the boundary commission, in spite of the Prime Minister's expression of such strong support for its doing so.
My reason for rising at this point is to say that the Bill, and certainly clause 2, provides no real mechanism for reviewing the regional electoral boundaries on which constituencies are based. As people were not consulted, it would not be surprising if people in future wanted to change the boundaries. There is in schedule 1 a small reference to local government changes, but we should like to ask the Minister how the electoral regions can be changed. The Bill makes absolutely no provision for it.

Mr. Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend has said. Lincolnshire has been grouped with the East Midlands. It has much more affinity with the Eastern region. There has been no recent consultation on the grouping of Lincolnshire with the East Midlands. Lincolnshire is essentially a rural county. Its interests are not likely to be represented by grouping it in the East Midlands, where there are many large urban concentrations and the representatives ultimately elected are likely to have much more to do with those urban areas than with the rural areas of Lincolnshire.
The point that I make is similar to the point that I made in the debate on clause 1 stand part. The specific interests—in this case of rural areas—will be prejudiced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that it is important that a system is in place whereby the House and other bodies can reconsider the groupings so that if one grouping is seen to prejudice the position of any county, that matter can be looked at and dealt with. I see no mechanism in the Bill to do that. I ask the Minister to be good enough to tell us what she has in mind.

Mr. Beith: There should be a boundary commission or a standing electoral commission to examine those matters after the first elections, but the Bill is so constructed to ensure that the next European elections, relatively soon, can be fought by a fair system. Therefore, we think that the Bill should proceed in its present form and that the clause should stand part of the Bill, but that we should return to the matter after those elections.

Ms Quin: The effect of clause 2 is merely technical. It provides for schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary


Elections Act 1978 to be replaced with schedule 1, to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. We shall discuss the provisions of schedule 1 later in our proceedings. Some of the matters that were raised by Opposition Members relate to amendments that we have already discussed in our debates on the regions, the regional structure of the Bill and the role of the boundary commission, or to subsequent amendments referring to a referendum and other aspects relating to schedule 1.
I am grateful for the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). He seemed to understand that this was simply a technical amendment to make sure that the elections could take place as foreseen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Ms Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 5, after 'enactments' insert 'and instrument'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39, 43 and 44.

Ms Quin: These are minor drafting amendments, like those that I moved earlier, which make no substantive change to the Bill.
Amendment No. 43 removes a reference to consent to nomination, which reflects the fact that, under the new list-based system, an individual standing for election does not consent to nomination in the traditional way.
Amendment No. 44 adds the statutory instrument relating to consent to nomination to the list of repeals. Statutory instruments are technically instruments rather than enactments, and are revoked rather than repealed, which explains the words used in amendments Nos. 38 and 39. The amendments together make no substantive change to the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her explanation, but I am still slightly perplexed about amendment No. 38. It refers to an instrument, but I look at schedule 4 and I cannot find an instrument. To what instrument is the amendment directed?

Ms Quin: I do not immediately have an answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I am advised that the drafting amendment does not make a substantive change. I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but we are being asked to amend the Bill. The premise of the amendment is that there is an instrument in the schedule. There is not an instrument in the schedule. That being so, why are we being asked to amend the Bill?

Ms Quin: Inspiration has just struck me. The regulation referred to is the regulation to which amendment No. 44 relates.

Mr. Hogg: With respect, that is not right. We are told that amendment No. 38 relates to clause 3. Subsection (3) of that clause reads:
The enactments listed in Schedule 4 are hereby repealed to the extent specified.
The Committee is referred to schedule 4. I see in schedule 4 only enactments, no orders. To what does the word "instrument" relate?

Ms Quin: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at amendment No. 44, he will find the answer to his question. It refers to a change in schedule 4. The amendments are taken together as a group—I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to appreciate that fact.

Mr. Hogg: That is not good enough. We are talking about a particular amendment. Amendment No. 38 amends clause 3. Clause 3 relates to enactments in schedule 4. It can make sense only if there is an instrument in schedule 4, but there is no such reference in that schedule.

Mr. Beith: Amendment No. 44 inserts an instrument into schedule 4.

Ms Quin: I think that the penny has dropped and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has realised that amendment No. 44 refers to schedule 4. I alluded to amendment No. 44 and the change that it makes to schedule 4 very clearly in my remarks.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 4, line 5, after 'repealed' insert 'or revoked'.—[Ms Quin.]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 22, at end add—
'(3) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 53, in page 4, line 22, at end add—

'(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless such an enactment as is mentioned in section 3(8)(a) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 for the registering of political parties has come into effect which—
(a) takes account of any relevant report from the non—statutory Committee on Standards in Public Life; and
(b) requires the democratic approval at regional level of party lists and of the order in which names appear on such lists by members of the registered party concerned.'.



No. 70, in page 4, line 22, at end add—

'(3) No Order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless—

(a) a draft Order under section 2(6)(c) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and
(b) the report of the non—statutory Independent Commission on the Voting System, established on 1st December 1997, has been published.'.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before dealing with the amendments, I must inform the hon. Lady that we shall not reach tonight the selection of amendments made by the Chair concerning election expenses. As a courtesy, I must inform her that, when we consider those amendments next Thursday, we should be grateful to hear from her or the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate regarding the Government's reaction to the Bowman decision recently announced by the European Court of Human Rights. That decision is absolutely central to the discussion that we shall have about election expenses. I hope that that will help the hon. Lady.
First, the amendments represent our concern that several activities running parallel to our consideration of the Bill should conclude and that the House should have time to debate and consider those conclusions before a commencement order is put in place with respect to this legislation. We have already agreed that the Bill represents a fundamental change. I agree very much with the point made earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that Parliament, and not the Government, should make a judgment about the commencement of the electoral process.
Secondly, this is a complicated process. We shall be focusing on new and extensive training measures that must be put in place for handling the legislation. We believe that the Government should report back to Parliament when those measures are in place and that both Houses of Parliament should decide on the commencement.
In addition, the Committee on Standards in Public Life is undertaking a review. The Government have also established an inquiry under Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as part of the secret Lib-Lab deal to change out of all recognition the constitution of this country. If anyone doubted that the inquiry was part of the Lib-Lab deal, the choice of Lord Jenkins to chair it would have laid those doubts to rest. It would be hard to find a former Member of this place—now a member of the other place—who had a more flexible constitutional interpretation at the heart of his political career than Lord Jenkins.

Mr. Beith: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the deal was not in the least secret; it was public from the day that it was concluded.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Oh no. What was public from the day that it was concluded was that there was a deal. The terms of the deal are slowly coming to light, and the more we see of them, the less we like them.
The third element of the amendments relates to our belief that there should be democratic accountability within the parties at a regional level before the election

can proceed. As has been made clear, the Conservative party will choose its regional candidates democratically, as will the Liberal Democrats, but the Labour party will not. I am grateful to someone, who will remain un-named, for letting me have a copy of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy's response to the Labour party's consultation paper on European parliamentary selections. It is absolutely relevant to the amendment before us, because it makes clear the opposition of many Labour party members to the fact that, although local members will be able to select one man and one woman, party apparatchiks will determine the candidates. That is typical of new Labour: new Labour, new control.
I tabled the amendments to ensure that voters throughout the country can have confidence in the democratic nature of the selection of candidates in all the parties. I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). One of the most objectionable features—there are many—of the Bill is that it potentially gives control over the selection of candidates to the central institutions of the party. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are not falling victim to the temptation to do that, but the Labour party is. It is reserving to the central institutions of the Labour party the power to adopt and re-adopt candidates. That is profoundly undemocratic. The advantage of my right hon. Friend's amendment is that it enables the Committee to consider the desirability of putting into commencement the Bill. It may sound improbable, but the Labour party will repent of its folly. At least it should be given the opportunity to do so. That is the great charm of my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Ms Quin: Amendment No. 16 would require both Houses of Parliament to affirm that legislation, which both would have passed, should come into force. If either House is not content with the provisions in the Bill, it can refuse to approve and enact them.
I accept that there are precedents, although they are few, for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used to bring Acts, or parts of Acts, into force. That procedure is usually reserved for situations where the commencement of the provision is contingent on some other event and Parliament needs to be satisfied that the contingent event had taken place.
There are no contingent events relating to the Bill that would justify the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for commencement and transitional procedure orders.
Amendment No. 53 would prevent the Secretary of State from bringing into force the provisions of the Bill until Lord Neill' s Committee on Standards in Public Life has produced a report. That Committee is not looking at issues relating to elections to the European Parliament; its main concern at the moment, as we know, is party funding. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that would include regulations to limit the national expenditure of political parties in relation to European elections.
That is necessary because, with the elections proposed for the European Parliament, candidates would campaign not on their behalf but on behalf of their parties and the


party list on which they are represented. It is therefore necessary to provide for expenditure limits on parties as well as on independent candidates. Those regulations could take account of any recommendations that Lord Neill's committee might make in relation to the national expenditure of political parties during elections.
Amendment No. 53 would also impose a condition on political parties requiring democratic approval at regional level of the party lists and the order in which names appear on such lists. Although, on several occasions during our debates, we have welcomed the Conservative party's conversion to party democracy, it is not for the Government to interfere in political parties' internal affairs.
It was interesting that, during our debate on Tuesday, a Conservative Member complained bitterly about his party's approach to organising the European elections and said that it would disadvantage his party. He referred to the meetings arrangements for which the Conservative party was responsible. However, each party must decide for itself how, within the limits of its constitution, it selects candidates for public office. However, the electorate will take account of how parties determine their lists when they vote.
Amendment No. 70 introduces two further conditions before the Secretary of State can bring into force the provisions of the Bill. The first relates to a report of the boundary commission. However, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is simply no need to involve the boundary commissions in the dividing of the country into established regions—the Conservative party is familiar with those, as it established them—which can be adopted with little amendment. The amendment is therefore simply a delaying tactic on behalf of the Conservative party. Why else would the Secretary of State have to wait a further four months after the boundary commissions complete their task before making the relevant order giving effect to their work?
The Opposition now want us to wait for the outcome of the independent commission on voting reform for this Parliament as well, before we introduce the new system for the European elections. We have always made it clear that there should be different systems of elections for different public bodies, and that each electoral system should be appropriate to the body concerned. As has been said many times, unlike this Parliament, the European Parliament does not determine a Government, so the issues that we need to consider are different from those of the Westminster Parliament.
The Government considered this issue carefully in bringing before the House a system based on regional lists, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We shall not withdraw the amendment. The contingent event to which the Minister refers is the complicated nature of this Bill. The electorate will have confidence in a centralised regional list system only if they can be sure that the people have been chosen democratically. For that reason, we shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 215.

Division No. 185]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Arbuthnot, James
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Cash, William
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Norman, Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Streeter, Gary


Fraser, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hawkins, Nick
Whittingdale, John


Hayes, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heald, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Woodward, Shaun


Horam, John
Yeo, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jenkin, Bernard
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. James Cran and


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Nigel Waterson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradshaw, Ben


Alexander, Douglas
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Baker, Norman
Burden, Richard


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Burnett, John


Banks, Tony
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cawsey, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Chisholm, Malcolm


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Boateng, Paul



Borrow, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)






Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Jenkins, Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cranston, Ross



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Ganston)
Laxton, Bob


Efford, Clive
Lepper, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fatchett, Derek
Linton, Martin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Flint, Caroline
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAllion, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCabe, Steve


Galloway, George
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike
McDonnell, John


Gardiner, Barry
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mandelson, Peter


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbuty)


Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Tyler, Paul



Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roy, Frank
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Sanders, Adrian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Savidge, Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil
Wills, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wood, Mike


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Janet Anderson and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Mike Wood be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Barry Gardiner be added to the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Local Government Finance (Devon and Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important matter of this year's local government settlement for Devon and Cornwall. The settlement will impact on the lives of all my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Chamber and every other person living in Devon and Cornwall.
It is worth noting that, although local authorities in many parts of the country have faced a tough financial settlement this year and have had to raise council taxes above the rate of inflation, the people of Devon and Cornwall are living in the two poorest counties in England and are, therefore, the least able to afford that. For example, in the newly shrunken Devon county council—after reorganisation it will no longer include Plymouth and Torbay—the increases will average about 20 per cent.
There is plenty of evidence that people are happy to pay more either in local government taxation or national taxation if they are getting better services and better value for money. However, no such compensation can be offered to them when receiving their bills this year. The fact is made worse by the cuts that will have to take place in many local government services throughout the two counties. Devon has had to make reductions in its service budgets of £8.5 million and Cornwall has had to make reductions of £7 million.
Devon has had the additional complication of having to cope with the reorganisation—slimming down after the loss of Torbay and Plymouth. Many of its problems in setting its budget for the coming year are in no small part due to the costs incurred through that reorganisation process. That is highlighted by the disaggregation of last year's spending in Devon being considerably different from the disaggregation of the coming year's standard spending assessment. That has left a £13 million shortfall which, shared out between the council tax payers in Devon, means that they will each be paying an extra £52—that is just to cope with the reorganisation.
One of the biggest regrets that I have is that there has not been a transitional relief programme such as that provided for Scotland when it went through its local government reorganisation, to cope with the costs that the county council has had.
The Government have allowed the capping limit this year to rise by £817,000 because they accept that the education administration costs should be based on the number of schools, not on the number of pupils. That is an important point which should be borne in mind for the future in terms of any review of the formulae used to divide funds being allocated to local authorities.

Mr. John Burnett: I wonder if my hon. Friend has considered whether it would assist the funding for Devon and Cornwall if the formulae for apportioning central Government funds between different county councils were made more equitable. I am referring specifically to a sparsity factor

as it affects school transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that were added to the formulae, it would assist Devon and Cornwall county councils?

Mr. Harvey: I have no doubt that further work needs to be done in reviewing the formulae used for the distribution of funds. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged some of the difficulties, but there is no doubt that there is a need for further significant work to be done in revising the formulae used. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that there will be further work in this area and I am convinced that it is necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned school transport. It would be a very good thing if the cost of school transport were to come to local authorities through their highways and transportation budgets and not to be seen as a function of education. Doing so would enable transport and highway authorities far better to plan the transportation that they must provide across many different service areas and the costs incurred and tasks involved in managing their highways network.
Education costs are a particular problem in two counties that have so many small schools. Costs are much higher, for example, in keeping 300 pupils in six different small schools than in having them in one larger school. In Cornwall, one in 10 primary schools has fewer than 50 pupils, and two thirds of them have fewer than 200 pupils.
The discretionary parts of the education budget will suffer in both counties. In Devon, post-16 transport will start costing more because it is a discretionary part of the budget. Transport to denominational schools also will suffer. That issue has been cropping up not only in my postbag but in those of other hon. Members.
Other services also will be affected by the rurality factor mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon—such as maintaining fire services that are able to reach people across the many miles of our road network, and road maintenance. In the county of Cornwall, traffic volume has increased annually by an average of 3 per cent., yet spending on highway maintenance has fallen in real terms by 14 per cent. Moreover, the impact of tourism, particularly in Cornwall, has not been considered adequately.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the sparsity factor in the formula. However, one other aspect of the formula has impacted very heavily on some resort towns in Devon and Cornwall—the part that recognises bed nights and people who move into one area from another. That part of the formula has gone. The review has therefore begun already, as decisions have been taken that have adversely affected constituencies such as mine. The remaining part of the review, which has not yet been conducted, will have to re-examine that matter in the light of the sparsity factor. It has affected severely our ability to meet discretionary spending, although we are spending up to cap and will have the lowest council tax in Devon. We still suffer from cuts.

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not think that many hon. Members will weep about the affect that that change in the formula has had on the city of Westminster—not even hon. Members who pay council tax on flats in London that we use so that we can attend to our parliamentary duties. In—quite rightly—doing something about the situation in the City of Westminster, the Government have caused a knock-on effect in areas such as those of my hon. Friend. The matter will be another priority for any review. I very much hope that the tourism element of the economies of Devon and Cornwall will be given due weight, and that the point that he raised will receive the recognition that it deserves.
The issue of rural deprivation also is in need of serious attention. There is deprivation in both rural and urban areas, and one certainly would not want to suggest that the rural deprivation problem is qualitatively or quantitatively different from that of urban deprivation. Nevertheless, some of the criteria that are used in assessing deprivation fail to recognise the differences between living in the countryside and living in towns. Although some of the measurements used appear to be appropriate, they are not when considering people who dwell in rural areas.
For many years, we have been bedevilled, for example, by the use of car ownership as a measure of deprivation. If people live in particularly remote rural areas, it does not matter how poor they are, because they will simply have to have some type of car. People may not have a particularly elegant or modern car, but they will have a car of some description, as it is the only way of getting around. Simplistic measures of deprivation can therefore distort the emerging picture. That is not unique to local government finance. It is astonishing that although the south-west region has 9 per cent. of the population, it gets only 3 per cent. of the total national spend under the single regeneration budget. That is because of exactly the sort of problems that have bedevilled the local government formula. It is the same in the health service. We need a review whose impact will be felt across all public services, not only those delivered by local government.
Many of the other problems that have to be dealt with have been inherited from the previous Conservative Government and, indeed, from the Conservative administrations of many shire counties. For years, they failed to see the necessity, and still fail to see the necessity, of providing adequate services in shire areas. Perhaps some Conservative Members would be here to participate in the debate if—

Mr. David Drew: Look behind you.

Mr. Harvey: Oh, I am delighted that there is one Conservative here, but I regret that he does not represent Devon or Cornwall.
The record of Conservatives in running counties shows that they have not spent adequately. Part of the funding formula is based on the historic spending pattern. By the time more enlightened administrations, whether Liberal Democrat, Independent, Labour or a mixture, finally won control of some of those authorities, it was against a background of central Government by clamping down and not allowing them the latitude that their predecessors had. That simply perpetuated the failure of local Conservative administrations to provide proper local services.
This year, central Government's contribution to Devon's overall spend has fallen from 73 to 67 per cent. That reduction is equivalent to £27 million, slightly more than the increase in council tax receipts. In other words, if the Government's support this year had been sustained at the same level, the council tax would not have had to go up at all, and band D tax payers would have been saved increases of £92.
We quite understand the Government's position. We have heard in this context, as in many other contexts, about the need for responsible stewardship of the public finances and the need to avoid boom and bust. I am sure that we shall have the benefit of hearing those points again this evening. No one is calling for reckless spending, but it was with great interest that I heard the Prime Minister acknowledge during Prime Minister's questions last Wednesday that the Conservative's spending plans had been wholly unrealistic. It seems highly unlikely that, had they won the general election last year, they would have stuck to them, so I implore the new Government not to feel that they should do so.
Last year, the new Government set in train various tax measures in the Budget which, as this Parliament unfolds, will result in a huge improvement in public finances. I am sure—at least, I hope—that the local government settlements made later in this Parliament will be very much more generous and that that will result in council tax payers getting much better value for money. However, for children receiving their education now, there is but one chance. It will be too late to hear that the education system in the two counties has been much better funded in years to come. One hesitates to say it, but, for those at the other end of the age spectrum who rely on social services, it will literally be too late if the improvements come in two or three years' time.
On Sunday, perhaps as many as 30,000 people are expected to come up from Devon and Cornwall to take part in the countryside march. I understand only too well that some of them are motivated by the hunting debate, while the farmers, quite rightly, will want to highlight the plight of their industry, but many of the people taking part in the demonstration will do so out of a sense of frustration with the lot of the country dweller. Despite the hopes of the Conservative party, they will not for one moment think that all the problems started on 1 May last year.
Many people to whom I have spoken understand only too clearly that the problems are the legacy of 18 years of disastrous policies which stripped the countryside of many of the services on which country dwellers depend. People have seen rural transport fall away, the number of village schools decline and so on. 1 hope that the new Government will listen to what is being said and not believe that the marchers are concerned only about hunting. I hope, too, that the Government will recognise the plea from the heart of many who live in rural areas that something absolutely has to be done to improve their lot. All councils face problems, not only because of the Conservative Government's legacy, but because of the new Government's stance on public finances. People did not elect Labour to carry out the Tory spending cuts, and people in Devon and Cornwall should not be expected to pay so dearly in the coming year for an even lower level of service than they were offered last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on securing the debate and on taking the opportunity to plead most effectively the case of his county and the adjoining county of Cornwall. Before I come to specific issues that he raised, it would be appropriate to make a few general points about the Government's approach to relations between central and local government—indeed, the hon. Gentleman anticipated that I would make a few such remarks.
The Government have a new agenda for Britain's future, and a vision for local government's place in that future. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that encourage increased democracy, so that local people can have more of a say in their council's affairs. We want increased autonomy, so that authorities have more freedom to take their own decisions, and increased accountability, whereby elected representatives are more visibly accountable for their actions. We also want increased emphasis on partnership, not only between central and local government, but between local authorities and local people, businesses and groups.
As part of the process to achieve our aims, a review of local government finance is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is working closely with local government, business and other representative organisations. Consultation papers on possible changes to aspects of the local government finance system will be issued over the next month or so, as part of the wider consultation on the modernisation of local government.
We have already published the first of our consultation papers, "Local Democracy and Community Leadership", which sets out proposals covering four broad themes. The first is the importance of modernising electoral arrangements to improve councils' accountability and to increase participation in local elections. We explore options such as annual elections, electronic voting, rolling registers and the use of new days and ways of voting.
Secondly, we suggest a number of new ways in which councils can listen to their communities and involve local people in their decisions, policy planning and policy review, through, for example, citizens juries, focus groups, referendums and the rather unattractively named techno-democracy.
Thirdly, we have encouraged new ways in which councils can work, giving them clearer political and management structures. We have, for example, explored the possibilities of executive mayors, cabinet systems, lead member systems and single-party executive committees.
Fourthly, we have set out the case for strengthening councils' roles as leaders of their local communities and for giving councils the powers that they need to meet community priorities and aspirations. For example, we have considered community planning, whether to impose a new duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, and the option of developing a scrutiny role. Follow-up consultation papers will cover best value in service delivery, a new ethical framework for local government, and the reform of local government finance.
I come to the specific issue of local government funding. All public expenditure programmes have to be examined rigorously each year—local government spending, which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure, is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must look not only at the pressure on local authorities, but at the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within local authorities.
As the hon. Gentleman stressed, we are committed to sticking to the public expenditure plans. Although we shall keep within existing spending targets, we have reorganised priorities. The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the educational needs of Devon and Cornwall and the importance of prompt action; he said that we could not put off for several years dealing with the educational needs of the current generation of schoolchildren. He will recognise that we have put an extra £853 million into education, every penny of which will be covered by this year's revenue support grant. It is a better, fairer, more flexible settlement than in previous years, although it has been agreed within a framework of tight control on public finances. We have increased total standard spending by 3.8 per cent. and provided an extra £350 million for community care. We have also provided £1.3 billion to improve the state of school buildings through the new deal for schools.
In addition, although not within the general ambit of local government spending, we have released £800 million of additional capital spending power for housing through the capital receipts initiative—£174 million to be released in 1997–98 and a further £569 million plus £41 million in revenue support in 1998–99. Of course, part of the money will go to Devon and Cornwall. We have already released more than £10.5 million in additional expenditure in those two counties, for housing and housing-related regeneration.

Mr. Sanders: The Minister is talking about approvals to borrow more money, not cash in hand. The problem that the authorities face is that they need cash in hand for services that they are not under a statutory obligation to provide. That is where the funding gap exists for local authorities in Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Raynsford: With respect, I have been talking about a range of different issues, including education. I made the point that the £835 million of additional spending was covered entirely by revenue support grant. I have also touched on other developments, including the capital receipts initiative, which has been warmly welcomed by authorities all over the country, as they were asking for additional borrowing capacity to meet important housing needs.
Standard spending assessments are the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant. They are based on measures of spending need that apply to all local authorities and are discussed with local government representatives. The SSAs for 1998–99 were debated in the House on 5 February, and the local government finance settlement has now been agreed.
Having said that, we are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant among authorities, and we believe that there is scope for improvement in the arrangements in future years.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I appreciate that this is a short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to make one simple point. Does he agree


with a number of his distinguished colleagues that, at the end of the day, Ministers have to make decisions and that even when we improve the formulae to near perfection, they will not be perfect? One of the current problems in Devon and Cornwall is that we are still suffering from the backlog of many years of inadequate formulae, so the cumulative effect on all authorities in Devon and Cornwall, whatever their political control, is that there is a formidable backlog in terms of capital expenditure and revenue support. Does the Minister agree that, at the end of the day, there must be a political decision to assist us?

Mr. Raynsford: I accept readily two of the hon. Gentleman's propositions: first, that Ministers must take decisions, and secondly, that there is a problem inherited from the previous Government, which we cannot expect to overcome immediately, but which we are seeking step by step to improve.
The standard spending assessment review this year was designed to make some changes. In respect of tourism, there was a general view that it was correct, despite the knock-on consequences for authorities that have been highlighted in tonight's debate. We have already said that we shall be looking at other indicators for the forthcoming year, as we believe that there is scope for improvement. There should be proper and full discussion with local authorities to assess the impact of changes before decisions are taken, but I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman's point that Ministers have to take decisions in the last analysis, and we shall do so.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already moved quite a long way in that direction, as this year Devon has received an increase in funding that is above inflation and above the national average? Despite that, the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council is imposing cuts and a 20 per cent. increase in the council tax. By contrast, the Labour-controlled local authority in Exeter received a far smaller increase in funding, yet services are being maintained and there is a zero increase in council tax.

Mr. Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend and, indeed, Exeter council on its achievement. I am delighted to know that the council is able to manage so well with the resources available to it. I shall deal with the wider issues of funding for Devon and Cornwall in a moment.
We shall look further at the standard spending assessment system. We shall listen to local government views on how SSAs might be improved, both for 1999–2000 and in the longer term. If the hon. Member for North Devon feels that the SSA system does not treat Devon and Cornwall fairly, I should be happy to examine any proposals that he has for different methods of calculation.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of small schools in the counties, which is a particular concern. That issue might be looked at if he feels that we should do so. Any system of this nature has to be universal, and any changes must apply to all authorities equally. When making changes, we must therefore be sure that they produce a fair impact across the whole country and that there is a sound assessment of needs.
I shall say a brief word on capping. We again gave clear signals that, although we propose to replace the current crude capping system, capping will continue in

1998–99. The Deputy Prime Minister restated his provisional capping principles to the House on 5 February. They allow authorities, on average, to increase budgets by 4 per cent., compared with 2.4 per cent. in 1997–98. It is now up to authorities to set their budgets in the light of all the circumstances, including the provisional capping guidelines. Authorities are aware of the procedure for seeking a redetermination of their cap if they set budgets above the provisional limit. We would consider their cases carefully, but in the event of an authority not getting everything that it asked for, it would have to bear the costs of re-billing council tax payers.
The particular circumstances of rural counties such as Devon and Cornwall are recognised in SSAs, which include allowances for sparsity. I realise that some authorities have anxieties about the area cost adjustment and the possible implementation of the findings of the Elliott review. That is why we did not implement the proposals this year. We felt that greater agreement should be achieved on the issue, and have therefore commissioned further research, which we intend to look at carefully before taking the matter forward.
Devon county council has seen its 1997–98 SSA increase by £13.2 million, or 3.1 per cent., for 1998–99. That is the figure arrived at after adjustments for changes in function were made. The adjusted increase in the SSA for education is higher, at £13.448 million. Those figures compare with the class average increase in SSAs for shire counties of 2.9 per cent. Therefore, Devon has not been treated unfairly in relation to other counties. It has received an increase slightly ahead of the national average.
The provisional cap for Devon for 1998-99 has been set at £440.104 million. That means that the county council will be able to spend up to £16.932 million above base budget—a permitted increase in budget of 4 per cent., compared with only 2.5 per cent. for last year and the county average of 3.7 per cent. Again, Devon's outcome is slightly better than the average for all counties across the country.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned reorganisation. I accept entirely that Devon is affected by reorganisation as Plymouth and Torbay become unitary authorities. Devon made representations to us on that, principally over the council tax increase as a result of the reorganisation and the disaggregation of its 1997–98 budget for education administration between itself and the new unitaries. We estimate that, as a direct result of reorganisation, the council tax increase in the new Devon will be £40 at band D.
The hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that there is no transitional relief. There is a transitional relief scheme, but it comes into effect only when the increase is more than £52 at band D. Devon, of course, falls below that threshold. We feel that an increase of less than £1 a week is not unreasonable, and it is important to recognise just what we mean when we refer to a council tax increase as a direct result of reorganisation. In Devon, it has come about because the county council had previously, quite legitimately, been spending more in the remainder of the county than it had in Plymouth and Torbay.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.